Obama's war on Fox & half the country

Blue Boy, yes 53% voted....yet, I dare say some of that percent came from the voter fraud that ACORN has been involved in. Never-the-less....that was also 9 months ago. No-one......not even you, would have ever thought that this election would bring such a "fundamental transformation" of our country. Including the things we love and value about being an American. Debate all you want, the facts are the facts........no debate can disprove that.

Rita, if facts are facts then I'm sure you would like to correct what you said...

You said voter-fraud....It wasn't voter-fraud...It was voter registration fraud within the company itself by employees too lazy to actually go out and do their job instead they made up names for money.

Those are the facts, get your facts straight before you attempt to pitch things at me. I hope that wasn't your curve ball.

I'm sorry to say, but Obama is doing exactly what he said he would do I'm not sure what else you expected from him. He is taking America the route I voted him in for with few exceptions(not closing GITMO fast enough, and his war efforts) but that aside economically and socially he is doing exactly what I would hoped he would do.

Thanks for your candor...

Acorn has not committed voter fraud....facts are the facts...and I agree with the changes President Obama has made...and look forward to when he makes more changes for the better...

At worst Fox News is just the other side of the NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN coin. You obama supporters complain that Fox manipulates facts and events to slant their reporting against obama but deny that the other media outlets manipulate facts and events in obama's favor.

And Blue Boy - just because 53% voted for obama in the election does not mean that they all still support him now. The fact is that many people who supported obama in the elction have turned against him now that they see him for what he really is, a completely incompetant inconsequential empty suit.

That was 53% of those who voted. And America even when we have a large turn out for elections like in 2008, has a pretty low percentage of the population voting. So just because he took 53% of the popular vote, that does not equal 53% of the population. As it is polls now show that the percentage of the entire population that actually agrees and supports him is in the 30% range

and I agree with the changes President Obama has made...and look forward to when he makes more changes for the better...

And what changes would those be? Please, list his accomplishments.

As it is polls now show that the percentage of the entire population that actually agrees and supports him is in the 30% range

Not that I believe anything a poll says (figures lie and liars figure), but his PERSONAL approval rating is still pretty decent. His JOB approval rating is what's in the toilet. Sounds like the people are saying "he's a nice guy who just isn't up to the job". Then again, it's easier to fool people into liking you than it is to fool them into thinking you're actually doing your job.

...that percent came from the voter fraud that ACORN has been involved in...

This old lie again?

Blue Boy, yes 53% voted....yet, I dare say some of that percent came from the voter fraud that ACORN has been involved in

Please, stop with the ACORN thing, you people just sound nuts now. Seriously, the only ones talking about ACORN is Faux Noise, enough said.

If you'd like to discuss voter fraud, perhaps we can talk about the 2000 election in FL or the 2004 election in OH, where exit polling irregularities suggest both races were fixed.

My gosh, you knuckle-dragging conservos grip onto something and never let it go, regardless of how idiotic you sound.

As it is polls now show that the percentage of the entire population that actually agrees and supports him is in the 30% range

Wopw, clearly another <sarcasm>genius</sarcasm>. So tell me, how is it that the vote of tens of millions of people is somehow less accurate than the random sampling of 1000 people over a phone call where the questions are more vague and there is no choice between one side or another?

I'd call your statement foolish but I feel I'd be insulting fools everywhere......

Boy, what an ego. "War on"? Give me a break. They were ignored and in order to keep themselves "relevant" now they say the White House has singled them out for "War".

This is such a joke. How many "true" Americans have bashed him at every turn since long before the election? Every day they engage in a childish form of gorillawarfare against the President, his family, and anyone who "they" think might support him. What his wife wears, if he deserves the Peace Prize, everything about his life and career is picked apart by a group of people who remind me of a pack of wild, rabid dogs attacking just to attack. The President hasn't declared "War" on Fox, he called them what they are- irrelevant.

I personally haven't seen any attacks by President Obama against Fox, this country, or the citizens.

Brent Johnson bestows this gem upon us:

At worst Fox News is just the other side of the NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN coin

Uh, yes, Brent. I believe that's what is meant by FalseNooz not being a news organization. As in the opposite side of the coin from those which are (or in the case of CNN, sort of) news organizations.

So just because he took 53% of the popular vote, that does not equal 53% of the population

True, the population includes children, and different levels of felons, who don't get to vote and have other people speaking for them due to their age/criminal situation.

But, the 53% is out of the votes cast.

Now...

http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/voting/013995.html

Says 64% of eligible voters turned out for the 2008 election.

The 36% of eligible voters that didn't turn out... cast a different kind of vote - they "voted" by abstaining to vote, to leave the choice to the 64% that did vote.

My gosh, you knuckle-dragging conservos grip onto something and never let it go, regardless of how idiotic you sound.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight....and you're still harping on the 2004 elections. Do your knuckles hurt hypocrite?

Rita, I'm not picking on you. You seem to be willing to act as spokesperson for popular opinion. If you are willing, I hope you will help me understand a mindset that confounds me even as it surrounds me.

I understand that since Fox News carries a prominent banner boasting of fairness and balance you have taken it at face value. How willing are you to accept the sanctity of such a boast? For example, when a movie is based on a true story, do you believe it is a completely accurate representation of events?

For example, assuming you've seen Black Hawk Down or Titanic, do you believe Mogadishu was controlled by punk rockers on motorbikes and a that an irrepressable urchin threatened to disrupt the whole class edifice through the power of love?

If you do, I will understand how Fox News has become sacrosanct dogma. If not, I wonder why you recognize one fiction and not another.

Steech, when Fox News says they are fair and balanced, they are specifically referring to their practice of bringing opinions from both sides of an argument on to debate. They do it all day long. They do it on their "News: programs and they do it on their "Opinion" programs.

I challenge you to show me a clip from MSNBC where Keith Olbermann actually has a guest that doesn't already completely agree with him.

Even if you disagree with the position Fox News personalities take, you can't escape the fact that they bring the opposition in. Take the blinders off.

Keith doesn't but he doesn't call himself news, but he is no better than the commentators on Faux, personally I stopped watching him due to the fact that if I spend an hour watching news I want more than 5 topix.

Rachel on the other hand, definitely does on a regular basis

Beck, O'Reilly, and Hannity don't call themselves news either. They pick a few topics, bring on opposing and agreeing views, and discuss.

Rachael does what?

Rita

Excellent observation.

What has to happen is that we the people have to remind our representatives and state Senators they work for us, and they have to vote against legislation we the people do not want. So call your senator and representatives, write letters to them, have petitions sent to them, and if they vote against we the people, vote them out of office.

If this does not work, the next step will be for the people to remove a government that has gone wild

The only thing I see coming from Rachel Maddow is attacks against those on the right.

I challenge you to show me a clip from MSNBC where Keith Olbermann actually has a guest that doesn't already completely agree with him.

Sorry if I wasn't clear about the Rachel statement.

Thanks, Brent. I appreciate your time, but wonder why you haven't answered my question. I admit, it was partly rhetorical and a quasi-challenge. But it had a point, and you either missed it or ignored it in styling your response.

For the record, I believe Fox News is fairly mainstream and functions as news between the hours of Fox & Friends and when the talking heads come on at prime time. It has a certain flavor, but I don't mind that because it's a free market and they should be expected to find the comfort zone of their target audience. Exactly the same is true of MSNBC, CNN, and HLN. While I do not watch the Fox Business channel or Bloomberg, I presume the same is true with emphasis on finance.

Democratic critics are not complaining about poor reporting of stories like the "balloon boy" and California wildfires and H1N1. They complain about the misinformation propagated by the editorialists that come on at prime time.

Again, for the record, editorialists on other networks trade in the same polemics as Fox. But there is a tangible difference between the way Anderson Cooper 360 and The O'Reilly Factor are produced. While they are both editorial, with pretenses of objectivity, the former is significanlty less hysterical. If CNN is in the party's employ, they are at least subtle about it. I do not believe Anderson Cooper has ever promoted the popular fiction that an elected official born in the United States was not born in the United States, for example (I know the birther movement is a moot point in all but a few die-hard redoubts; I am only using it as an example, not to reawaken that debate. This is the clearest case of misinformation and promotion of a party as I can find in recent memory.).

But back to your rebuke: Find the part in my comment of #3.1 where I said Mr. Olbermann is presenting news. I do not believe he is any more an objective journalist as any given conservative champion. He is an editorialist who is working market forces, just like Mssrs. Beck, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, and Hannity.

My question is: Why are some conservatives so reluctant to admit Fox News isn't fair and balanced? It's a simple question. I'm not asking anyone to recant, just be candid with themselves. The answer is either that fairness and balance are not conservative values or that those conservatives lack critical analysis skills.

You are exactly right. I don't watch FOX News that much, but I do watch and listen to the President. I can't believe the crap he spews, along with all the other idiots in his administration. Some of the things they say, make no sense whatsoever. It's as if they are talking down to the people.....like we wouldn't understand anyway, so why bother. And the other news outlets report as though they are scripted by the White House. They don't report news..they report Obama and Michelle's glamourous life....jet setting around, partying, date night....are you kidding me? If this guy wanted to do something constructive..send troops to Afghanistan to back up the ones that are already there, and maybe save a few lives, while he takes his dumba$$ time making up his childish mind.

Again, for the record, editorialists on other networks trade in the same polemics as Fox. But there is a tangible difference between the way Anderson Cooper 360 and The O'Reilly Factor are produced. While they are both editorial, with pretenses of objectivity, the former is significanlty less hysterical. If CNN is in the party's employ, they are at least subtle about it.

Doesn't that make CNN more dangerous, not less? (and CNN is FAR less partisan than, say NBC, poor choice of an example) I'd certainly say that the partisan news organization that's easy to detect as such is less of a problem than the one that does it more stealthily...

I do not believe Anderson Cooper has ever promoted the popular fiction that an elected official born in the United States was not born in the United States, for example

And who, at Fox, aside from Hannity (I don't think Beck had joined the network yet, and don't know if he jumped on that sinking ship), did play up the birther angle?

I do not believe he is any more an objective journalist as any given conservative champion. He is an editorialist who is working market forces, just like Mssrs. Beck, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, and Hannity.

Actually, the only one I would compare Olberman to is Limbaugh...and, maybe, half the time, Hannity. But likening him to O'Reilly is like comparing Alan Colmes to Limbaugh...it's a HUUUUUUUUUUUUGE stretch, at best.

Skeptics, your points are taken. I'm hardly a scholar of the cable networks, so perhaps I should have just kept quiet. The reason I didn't is because I used to watch them and consciously stopped out of disgust. Most people won't listen to what they know is a deception. A banner or slogan espousing objectivity over a stage of deceit insults the intelligence and character of its audience. I don't pretend to be particularly smart; but if I can reach this conclusion, anyone can.

(The reason I chose Anderson Cooper and O'Reilly is that I'm more familiar with them than the others. I might actually watch The Situation Room and Anderson Cooper 360. Of the two, I find Anderson Cooper a little more committal on partisan issues. I don't watch enough to rule that this is absolutely the case, so perhaps I am wrong. I occasionally check out O'Reilly to stay abreast of the conservative take. While he is deeply offensive to me, I can endure more of his diatribe than that of Limbaugh and Beck. I could easily substitute Hannity for O'Reilly.

The reason I chose CNN over MSNBC is because I feel CNN is more committed to news than MSNBC - and it definitely takes a different position than Fox. Apart from Matthews and Olbermann, does MSNBC even show anything other than shows about prison life and meth addiction after dark?)

I gladly award you the point, Skeptics, and apologize for my rashness. My fault was elaborating beyond my expertise and going off on a tangent. My original question is all that was really needed and remains: Why are some conservatives so reluctant to admit Fox News isn't fair and balanced? It's a simple question. I'm not asking anyone to recant, just be candid with themselves. The answer is either that fairness and balance are not conservative values or that those conservatives lack critical analysis skills.

I should have kept to that point. Again, I'm sorry if I distracted from this conversation by posting a poor choice of comment.

Keith doesn't but he doesn't call himself news,

And, of course, he never pretends that he's not giving his opinion.* FalseNooz continually uses it's so-called news segments of the day to propagate slanted if not outright false stories. The teabagger rally back on Labor Day was a great case in point. False tried to portray this as news, but then we saw the video of the False "news" people on the scene doing their level best to rouse the rabble up for the cameras. This just underscored in stark visual confirmation that the whole teabagger movement was stage managed by FalseNews and other right wing groups. Nobody objects to FalseNooz's highly rightward opinions. Every news organization is entitled to editorialize all they want. But FalseNooz's "news" is anything but "fair and balanced" when bogus stories are pushed to fit with their political agenda. FalseNooz is a reich-wing propaganda organization top to bottom.

* This is not to suggest that KO doesn't put a great deal of factual information into his show. He often gives us extended video confirmation of the double speak and lies that Republicans are putting out.

Rachael does what?

Gives a snobby, snooty look while saying things that were yesterday news. She is exactly how I would see the rich New Yorken to look like and talk. Thoughts of Civil War begin to flood my brain when I watch her. I am sure that people like her were the reason the Civil War happened in the first place. It wasn't about... Then I change the channel and some sanity is restored. God I hate that woman.

You have any links to that?

I think what cactus flower is referring to is when a few Democratic figures mentioned they wanted conservative radio stations to have a opposing voice because the people listening to the radio stations never heard a opposition to the speakers argument, therefore everything he/she says seems true unless the person researches it for themselves of course.

Thanks, Blue Boy.

I have noticed that people who listen to FOX and Rush believe that they don't need to go any further for information.

I find it somewhat doubtful that having an opposing view on the show would do any good. All Rush does is call any caller with a different viewpoint an idiot.

Not exactly honest discourse, is it?

Not only radio stations, but TV stations that were running ads critical of obama.

Notice how those on the left ignore that

Actually what I remember is when the obama attack dogs went after TV stations broadcasting ads from the NRA that were critical of obama's history of trying to restrict second Amendment rights. They were making threats to remove TV stations FCC license

I distinctly remember Obama coming out against the Fairness Doctrine. But your welcome to back up you claims with quotes or even god forbid links.

Here is an article from factcheck.org which talks about how the NRA was deliberately distorting (aka - lying) about Obama's position on gun control. The Obama campaign asked stations not to run the ads that were lying.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/nra_targets_obama.html

Here is just one excerpt from the article:

"The NRA announced it will spend $40 million during this year's elections, including $15 million to portray Sen. Barack Obama as a threat to gun rights. The NRA has been circulating fliers and mailers that claim to be "Barack Obama's 10-Point Plan to 'Change' the Second Amendment." And on Sept. 22 reports surfaced that the NRA had launched TV ads in several key states, also attacking Obama. They are false portrayals."

Actually the NRA was not distorting obama's record on gun control. They used his votes on legislation and obama's own remarks against him.

Oh please.

Sorry, Susan...facts don't matter to people who only want to spew lies and hate. Thanks for the facts about this issue and links to credible sources.

You're welcome, Redsfan.

It just didn't seem like we were going to get any links from the people actually making the claim.

Do I think that knowledge of the facts will change their minds? Not at all.

Factcheck is not credible as Obama is part of that org. Voting records are available on govt sites. Obama is anti-gun and anti-free speech.

Obama is part of Factcheck?

hahahahaha!

You people are too funny!

Here is a link to Factcheck that criticizes democrats for lying in one of their ads:

http://factcheck.org/2009/09/senior-scare-yet-again/

Oh, yep, uh huh. Everyone who uses facts to dispute what conservatives are doing is nothing but a liberal liar. Yes, that's right. They don't go after democrats, too. No they don't.

"Oh please", indeed. Here are the "Chosen One's" votes on gun issues when he was a state legislator:

http://www.sportsmenforobama.org/content/view/42/34/

Keep slurpin'!

First of all Brent, the attack ads were not directed towards Obama's voting record. They were saying all sorts of weird things like Obama is going to make hunting ammunition illegal. There was no basis for saying anything of the sort. I suggest you read my Factcheck link.

I did read your link. I'll address it but I would like to stress the fact that the NRA's ads really had very little to do with Obama's voting record.

For everyone else, please ignore the rest of my post. It's very loooong.

Yes, Obama did most often vote against the views of the NRA.

He voted against concealed weapons. I come from hunting country here, yet almost every store in town has a notice on it's front door that concealed weapons are not allowed. Judging from my own experience, people don't really like the idea of concealed weapons being brought into public places.

He also voted against people without a Firearm Owners Identification Card (FOID card) being able to hunt with someone who does have one. Yes, how horrible of him to not want to allow people who may have criminal records to go out and use guns. Bad, bad Obama.

He voted against lowering the FOID card from 21 to 18. I don't know. If you're not old enough to drink maybe you're not old enough to take responsibility with a gun. Your website complains that this means that people who are old enough to be in the military are not old enough to have a FOID card. Yes, that's true. But people in the military have been trained very well and operate under very strict supervision.

He voted for the Gun Show Loophole bill. This is a bill that keeps people without permits from buying guns at gun shows. Sounds good to me.

He voted against a bill that would notify gun owners when their gun was the subject of a records search. This was to prevent people from destroying their guns if they had been used in a crime.

He voted for an amendment that would allow people to hunt deer with a handgun. The NRA must have like that one.

Lastly, he voted against allowing gun owners the right to say that it was okay that they used an illegal weapon as long as that weapon was used in self-defense. Personally, I think the implications of this bill are funny.

Okay. I've talked about each of the bills that Obama voted on.

Would you care to explain to me how they constitute Obama being the most "anti-gun President in American history"?

...was it not Obama, during his campaign, who tried to get certain radio stations, with opposing views, silenced?

No, it was not.

Refresh my memory = was it not Obama, during his campaign, who tried to get certain radio stations, with opposing views, silenced?

Let me guess the source, odds on it's either Beckerhead, Vannity, Lushbaugh, O'liely or his arse. I'm going even money on his arse....

How could a CANDIDATE for office, who at the time was the junior Senator from Illinois, get any radio station "silenced?" If, by "trying to get [them] silenced" you mean responding to their lies and pushing back against misinformation, say so. That's NOT the same thing as "silencing" them. On the contrary, it's a classic demonstration of the adage that the cure for offensive speech is more speech.

Susan quit hiding behind double speak and fact checking. Answer a simple question:

Do support the second amendment?

and

Do think Obama supports supports the second amendment?

Yes and yes. Easy questions to answer.

I am not selective in my support of the Constitution. I support the whole thing and the process under which we are supposed to govern. Problem is nobody is doing that and the alphabet soup networks are turning a blind eye.

Obama is exceeding his powers, the democrats are playing more than dirty politics in the congress, they are close to being in contempt. Now the president is trying to use the power of his office to shut up those who oppose his policies. UNPRECEDENTED!

Yeah the democrats our for the people. They did not show up for hearings against the former head of Countrywide, Wonder why?

Because of all the money countrywide gave to the dems.

Remember the issue awhile back with dodd and countrywide, how quick the MSM buried that scandal

That sounds plausible.

Now why did the networks not cover this (except the opinion shows on FOX)?

Why are the left not upset or the American people in general, I myself want all these crooks that committed fraud against the US brought to justice in an out of government.

Instead of

Obama's war on Fox & half the country

How about "Obama's calling out of FAUX News and less than 18% of the country that call themselves Republicans".

You lambaste Fox News and then use a "Media Matters" link as a source?

Keep watching Olbermann and grinning jarrod.....

LMFAO!

Brent

Do you dispute that in May 2008, Bush White House counselor Ed Gillespie publicly accused NBC of engaging in "deceitful editing" in its airing of portions of an interview NBC reporter Richard Engel conducted with Bush?

Do you also dispute that in a letter to NBC News president Steve Capus, Gillespie wrote, "I'm sure you don't want people to conclude that there is really no distinction between the 'news' as reported on NBC and the 'opinion' as reported on MSNBC, despite the increasing blurring of those lines"

Do you also dispute that Fox News personalities subsequently questioned why Bush would agree to be interviewed by NBC in the first place and applauded the White House's decision to attack NBC?

If so, please explain to me why you dispute these things.

You first point: No. Editing an interview in an attempt to skew the context is wrong.

Your second: No. They (along with Hillary) were tired of NBC wearing their Obama Pom-Poms:

http://www.usatoday.com/life/television/2008-05-26-nbc-msnbc_N.htm

I don't recall O'Reilly telling the world that he "Had a tingle running up his leg" when McCain spoke. I don't remember Hannity saying (as Olbermann did) to "turn that guy's mic off" when someone on his post DNC speech panel criticised Obama.

Your third: No-see second.

I don't recall O'Reilly telling the world that he "Had a tingle running up his leg" when McCain spoke

Though there were plenty of commentators who voiced and showed their "tingle" about Palin's looks.

Brent

Again, nice dodge. I'll ask again: Did the Bush Administration attack NBC or not? Did they not question the validity of NBC and directly call MSNBC an 'opinion' network?

You answered 'NO' to all three questions even though I provided visual proof that they all indeed occurred. Not a big fan of facts huh?

Here's a link to FOX News story outlining all of this. Maybe you'll believe it then ;)

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,356753,00.html

Editing an interview in an attempt to skew the context is wrong.

You mean, like this?

http://www.politicususa.com/en/Stewart-Hannity

Or this?

http://mediamatters.org/research/200907080007

Or this?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/09/sean-hannitys-selective-e_n_228702.html

My guess is you will dismiss these as 'liberally bias' even though the links show direct audio and video footage of Hannity butchering various interviews with the intent to twist the message. In one of these clips, Hannity actually splices out part of Obama's quote and then directly attacks Obama for not mentioning the piece that he edited out.....CLASSIC

Here was a recent hacked up editing job from Hannity that caused Michael Moore to laugh directly in Hannity's face. Hannity of course changes the subject quickly and moves on......http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/michael-moore-makes-mincemeat-out-ha

Brent, it's absolutely hilarious that you try to defend the Bush Administration's attack on NBC as justified because "editing an interview in an attempt to skew the context is wrong" but you still defend FOX News and condemn the White House's attack on them...........FOX News has mastered the art of editing interviews and content in order to twist the message. Most of their programs are built on that very tactic.

I must admit, you can always make me laugh ;)

Blearc, provide the link.

jarrod, I wasn't dodging anything. I gave you context on the letter you brought up and provided a non-partisan link. Yes, a member of the Bush administration pointed out blatant pro-Obama bias to personnel at NBC. Hillary AGREED WITH THEM.

I don't defend Hannity for editing an interview to skew the context any more than a left-winger. If you are thinking that I believe people on the right are "better" than those on the left-guess again. I don't "worship" the people I tend to agree with politically. I like Fox because they bring on both sides of the argument and hash it out. I make my own judgement.

And YES, when all you bring to the table are left wing blogs as your sources, you make me laugh as well. Can't you even get an NBC, CBS, or NY Times url to try to prove your point?

I think Hillary will defeat Obama in the primary in 2012. ;-)

Can't you even get an NBC, CBS, or NY Times url to try to prove your point?

I provided links with audio and video footage of the actual event. Generally, NBC, CBS, and the NY Times don't provide the actual footage, just commentary on the topic. I'd rather you be able to watch it and decide for yourself. I'm not sure how you can argue with actual footage of the event in mention just because of the letters in the url.....that seems like a pretty childish approach. how much more credible can you get than the actual footage of the incident in question?

On numerous occasions on the Vine, I have stated that I see no difference between the Olbermann's and the Hannity's of the world. However, this particular seed is about the WH's 'attack' on FOX News. As I pointed out, this isn't groundbreaking nor is it unjustified nor is it a 'war on half of the country'.

I guess my final question would be "what's your point"? Your #6.2 post seemed to indicate some type of disagreement with me yet when I provide specific examples of what I'm talking about, you back away and say you 'don't defend anyone' and that everyone is guilty. And you consistently go back to shooting the messenger as 'liberally bias' even if the information contained in the link is simply a video clip of an incident.

I guess it's convenient to just be able to bat down anything you don't like as 'liberally bias'.

PS- This assertion by you, in true FOX News fashion, is a misrepresentation:

Yes, a member of the Bush administration pointed out blatant pro-Obama bias to personnel at NBC. Hillary AGREED WITH THEM.

Hilary's anguish with NBC had nothing to do with the interview that the Bush Administration was upset about. The link you provided clearly outlines that ;)

how much more credible can you get than the actual footage of the incident in question?

I agree...that's one reason why mediamatters is absolutely credible...they link to actual recordings of the person saying the quote...any reasonable person can't refute that. If need be, look at a longer clip of what media matters posted if you think it is "out of context" but don't say it never happened if there is a video posted of the person saying it.

Childish approach? So, anyone who doesn't agree with you is childish? Right out of "Liberalism 101".

6.2 was me saying you use bs sources.

If Hannity edited a clip to skew context, he is guilty. What is wrong with that?

Hillary was upset at the media in general for kissing Obama's butt. I never said anything about the specific interview. That assertion by you, in true MSNBC fashion, is a misrepresentation.

Ok, I went to the mediamatters link about Hannity and the cold war. There is an obvious "disolve" between the question asked and Obama's answer. In TV, "disolves" are used to show a jump in time. Hannity didn't want to show the entire boring answer given by Obama, just the part that he wanted to comentate on.

Obama never said America won the Cold War (which we did). That was Hannity's point and it is still accurate with the disolve to get to the meat. The disolve didn't change any contect what so ever.

Happy?

Childish approach? So, anyone who doesn't agree with you is childish? Right out of "Liberalism 101".

No. Anyone who denies that an event occurred in the face of actual video footage of the event is childish ;) Also, anyone who claims that a link providing actual video footage is 'liberally bias' because of the url is childish. Actually, sans inappropriate words in the url, labeling anything based on it's url without exploring the content is childish.......

6.2 was me saying you use bs sources.

Again, apparently you consider video footage a bs source......good to know

If Hannity edited a clip to skew context, he is guilty. What is wrong with that?

Exactly. He's guilty of skewing news. And if it happens over and over on FOX News programming, then FOX News is guilty of skewing the news, which is exactly what the White House has accused them of doing.

Hillary was upset at the media in general for kissing Obama's butt. I never said anything about the specific interview. That assertion by you, in true MSNBC fashion, is a misrepresentation.

Actually Brent, in the link you provided, the article outlines that Hilary's discontent toward NBC had to do with Chris Matthews assertion that Hilary was only in a position to be Senator and run for President because her husband 'fooled around'. Yet, you said this and provided your link as proof:

They (along with Hillary) were tired of NBC wearing their Obama Pom-Poms:

Yet, your link mentions nothing about Hilary being upset with Pro-Obama treatment.

Brent, your ship's sinking my man.......

Brent

In #6.11

Fail. Again.

Hannity specifically chastises Obama and brings up Lech Walesa to prove his point even though Hannity just cropped out the part where Obama specifically discussed Lech Walesa's role and opinions on the topic.

Not too mention, Hannity cropped out the last sentence of Obama's answer where he praised Democratic and Republican Presidents for their work in 'lifting the Iron Curtain', which goes the heart of the Hannity's criticism. Hannity 'disolved' the pieces of the interview where Obama praised American leadership and then chastised Obama for not praising American leadership.

And what about the other numerous examples outlined in the various links provided?

The Hannity story was about Obama not being able to say "America WON the Cold War". Hannity proved his point.

But, you have it your way. I've got better things to do. I'm tired of talking to a brick wall.

If it helps you sleep at night, you can call me a childish failure.

;-)

Brent

That's about the response I expected ;)

If it helps you sleep at night, you can call me a childish failure.

It won't help me sleep at night but I'll call you a childish failure just the same....

Seriously, lay off the Kool-Aid.

You make a mistake in believing that just because someone is anti-Faux Noise that they are liberal.

I am an independent and I find them nausiating. They are in the tank, and they convince saps like you that all of the other outlets are this fictitious "liberal media" cabal conspiring against the conservative movement. Wake up! Please, for your own sake and mind, because whackjob's votes count the same as everyone elses.

Then what are you concerned about?

Brent appears to confuse ridicule with concern.

Fox News supporters, parroting Bill O’Reilly, love to tout their viewership statistics to provide some sort of credibility to the “news” they’re fed by Fox News Channel. Here is a different way of looking at the statistics:

U.S. Population: 307,649,352
World Population: 6,789,207,067
FNC Total Prime Time Viewers: 2,682,000
…that’s 0.87 percent of the U.S. population.
(population clock – 10/8/09 | cable news – 10/7/09)

Sure, FNC puts up some big numbers, but they don’t differentiate between those who agree with the channel and those who don’t. It is nice to know that over 99% of the population isn’t being spoon fed a load of bull every evening.

Dan, I see you have a problem with Beck. How about Olbermann?

I'd like to take that one: Beck isn't worthy to lick Olbermann's shoe soles. I would challenge anyone, anywhere to find a single factual error in anything Olbermann has ever said or written. OTOH, I would challenge anyone to find a single fact in anything Beck has ever vomited out of his mouth.

Fr, quality rebuttals as always. From the sounds of you responses, you must be on Obama's "Minister of Propaganda" payrol. Try some substance.

Dan--you forgot to mention all the O'Reilly rants, Hannity's lies, Rush's ridiculousness rouses-- which by the way have been refuted as mostly hot air hypocritical lies. See that's where investigative 'factual' news comes from...something that Faux wouldn't recognize if the camera hit them in the head! makeup please!

Brent- the difference is that Olbermann attacks his counterparts over the LIES and misrepresentations that spew from the foamy mouths of your fox heros. Faux is an entertainment show not a news show. Please show me legit clips or sources showing Olbermann, Maddow and crew lying through their teeth and inciting other white ppl to carry loaded guns to prez political gatherings. Bet ya can't. YOU LOST get over it. Oh you DO know that if someone (Fox) says something loud enough and long enough surely the feeble minded will eventually believe EVERYTHING they say. It's the enlightened ones of your party that actually do leg work and research the facts to come up with their own intelligent hypothesis. Actually anyone who actually believes or likes Beck scares me as they obviously aren't mentally there. The others are just tools with big paychecks.

Zenkarma, no, Olbermann insults and demeans people. He brings on supposed "whistle-blowers" who help write cheers. Olbermann "LIES":

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/justin-mccarthy/2008/06/04/steve-doocy-calls-out-keith-olbermanns-lies

http://homepage.mac.com/mkoldys/iblog/C1049953760/E20060411220251/index.html

http://ifawebnews.com/2009/10/09/when-it-comes-to-coli-keith-olbermann-is-either-an-idiot-or-a-liar/

Maddow Lies:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jack-coleman/2009/02/27/rachel-maddow-more-shameless-speechless-contorting-jindals-remarks-kat

Questions?

I'd add this: in shows like Glenn Beck's, the pundit may have a right to express his opinions, but he still should be fact-checked by his network or publisher. Misinformation in opinion pieces is still misinformation, and journalistic malpractice. Furthermore, when Fox began actively advertising and promoting events like the "tea party" rallies and Beck's "9/12" protest march, they crossed very far over the line between news coverage and political advocacy. They're creating the events that they then cover as "news," and a real news outlet doesn't do that.

Brent

By your logic, all of your posts are 'conservative bias' sources thus whatever they contain is a lie.

Questions?

Atta boy Jarrod, turn the tables.

That fraud criticizes your sources as liberal, but we're supposed to take his as the "real news"?

Brent, I see you demured from the challenge well enough. Wise move.

FrJackHacket

(per #8.2)

I would challenge anyone, anywhere to find a single factual error in anything Olbermann has ever said or written.

Do you wish to change the terms? Here is one. But you can also check this out.

This is so easy; we could do this all day. In fact, we could do this all day with most any media host regardless of ideology or political leanings because with all they say, the other side will either misinterpret an uttering into a lie or the host will indeed make a factual error. The host may even lie without realizing it because of his/her own bias. To suggest that one 'side' is all lies and the other is all truth condemns your argument to irrelevance.

Interestingly, here is another one showing Olbermann yet again off base but below it there is a video where we see Olbermann in his typical O'Reilly bashing (nothing better to do Keith?) catching O'Reilly in a lie (truly productive use of air time). And what a lie he has uncovered too! Brilliant stuff. This is the best he has - this is worthwhile to his audience??

I would challenge anyone to find a single fact in anything Beck has ever vomited out of his mouth.

Beck bothers me as well - too theatrical, jumps to conclusions. Nevertheless, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that your above challenge is not serious. But if you are serious, there really would be no point in responding.

Got one too!

Doocy noted Olbermann’s claim he does not go after public figure’s children, but named Doocy’s own son "Worst Person in the World." Doocy fumed "So next time you see Keith Olbermann on TV, just remember he is somebody who picks on people’s children. And he is a liar."

This was after he had to issue an apoligy to Mrs. Chelsea Clinton for his Chelsea Clinton Pimped Out article. Also he called the brilliant scholar Mrs. Carlson stupid. All of this in one episode. Note: Where did Olbermann go to College? What were his grades in High School? The bigger question: Why was he fired from McDonalds?

And yet the Liberals worship him... I thought you guys were supposed to be Intellectuals?

Note: Where did Olbermann go to College? What were his grades in High School? The bigger question: Why was he fired from McDonalds?

What? You aren't going to ask for his birth certificate too?

I never claimed Olbermann to be something that he wasn't. He's a dumb ass who acts like he's better than everybody else when in fact most of the Nation has a higher level of Intelligence than he does.

You make a lot of inflamatory claims without and iota of evidence. Did you copy&paste this from the KOS?

Attrocities in Katrina? And the wire tapping is still happening under your "Chosen One". Oh, and Oblahblah continued to grant imunity to the telecoms.

Show some evidence of the FBI detaining students and professors. You are starting to sound like Beck.....

If you don't like Fox, then don't watch. What are you getting all huffy about?

It is amazing watching these pro obama types try to defend obama's attack against a news channel and private individuals.

Dana, they keep regurgitating the Huffington Post lies as sources. They remind me of the zombies in "Day of the Dead".....

brent-- kind of like you regurgiting newsbusters?

i'll get back to you on your previous post about olbermann/maddow gotta get back to work. stay tuuuned

So you can reference "whitey racists" (#12.3) again? Gee, I can hardly wait.

Brent, all cases were suits filed in US Federal Court and State courts. You can look it up if it isn't to much for you to do so. During the Bush years there was plenty of repression regarding freedom of speech, multiple laws suits across the country. All information about suits filed regarding the rights of American citizens regarding freedom of speech is available on the internet and in libraries across the US.

Since this information is documented and proof of citizens rights being taken away, what is your problem, exactly? You would prefer to believe Fox news? As I have said many times, Fox is for the ignorant, which you show in all your capacity by stating the information came from the Daily Kos. If you are truly informed about all aspects of civil rights and freedoms of American citizens then you would never have posed that question.

Unless of course, you are a mere teen and were living under a rock during the Bush years, this is common knowledge, but, as I said, all well documented. Use the power of your internet and begin to learn.

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/17259pub20030508.html

Some government officials, including local police, have gone to extraordinary lengths to squelch dissent wherever it has sprung up, drawing on a breathtaking array of tactics - from censorship and surveillance to detention, denial of due process and excessive force. Police have beaten and maced protesters in Missouri, spied on law-abiding activists in Colorado and fired on demonstrators in California, and campus police have helped FBI agents to spy on professors and students in Massachusetts. Ashcroft's Justice Department has further asserted the right to seize protesters' assets and deport immigrants under anti-terrorism statutes rushed through Congress after the attacks, and debated whether to revoke U.S. citizenship in some cases.

http://cursor.org/0203_archive.htm Fox found the Iraq war very Profitable

In Saddam's Pocket Iraqjournal.org's Jeremy Scahill reports on the money that major TV networks are forking over to Iraqi officials and the government "to ensure access once the bombs start flying." He finds it "particularly ironic that while Rupert Murdoch's 'troops' from FOX News rally for the war, dismissing antiwar activists as dupes of the Iraqi regime, the 'network America trusts' is paying 'Saddam' (as they refer to Iraq) hand over fist tens of thousands of dollars every month.

http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/protest/11171prs20030410.html

NEW YORK -- In response to a demand made by the New York Civil Liberties Union earlier this week, police officials have agreed to halt a recently implemented secret program of interrogating protesters about their political affiliations and prior demonstration activities, the NYCLU announced today.

"As a city and a nation, we are at a crossroads about civil liberties," said Donna Lieberman, Executive Director of the NYCLU. "The city's initiation of these interrogations reveals how willing government is to abandon basic First Amendment values in these difficult times, while its reversal shows that New Yorkers can successfully defend their civil liberties."

Under the program, which had been in effect at least since the large February 15 antiwar rally here, the NYPD had forced hundreds of protesters charged with minor offenses to surrender information about their political affiliations and prior protest activity. That information was being collected on a recently disclosed form entitled, "Criminal Intelligence Division/Demonstration Debriefing Form."

http://iml.jou.ufl.edu/projects/Spring04/Hale/index2.html

Clear Channel has the ability to control programming on their stations, and to regulate who gets on and who doesn't. The Chicago Tribune and Salon.com released a "banned playlist" of songs Clear Channel radio DJs were told not play following the Sept. 11 disasters. Over 150 songs were on it, including John Lennon's "Imagine," Louis Armstrong's "What A Wonderful World," and R.E.M.'s "It's the End of the World (As We Know It). The company even banned the Dixie Chicks from being played after their anti-Bush statements regarding the Iraq war. The company then organized pro-war rallies, called “Rallies for America,” where people crushed Dixie Chicks cds, held up signs about the damn liberals and cheered for the war. (Barrett) Even though it was the first time in the history of the United States that a broadcasting company had sponsored a pro-war rally, it may not have surprised the Republican-controlled FCC.

It is amazing watching these pro obama types try to defend obama's attack against a news channel and private individuals.

What's really funny is just merely stating the obvious, that FalseNews is not really a news organization at all, is seen as an attack. And, False's response, as well as that of all of the dupes who actually believe anything False puts out, merely reinforces how the comment hit the bullseye. Any reputable news organization would have laughed this off. When Bush went after the NYT for not giving him undeserved praise, the Times just ignored him. That's what a real news organization does in a situation like this.

Thank you NonPartisanAmerican for doing the work for Brent.

I rarely bother these days to post facts because no matter what one posts the right refuses to believe facts. It is a lot of work to research and read and arm oneself with knowledge. They would much rather be 'told' by Fox what to believe.

they keep regurgitating the Huffington Post lies as sources

And American Thinker is any different? LMAO

Happyblue

I understand but I rather just put the facts out there anyway but the facts never seem to get in anyones way.

Part of my problem with Fox is that they will throw anything out there just to attack the President, it doesn't matter if their party is gulity of the same exact thing they will blow it up enhance it, wave it around & then report on it like it was actual news.

Not even close!

Throwing out the Race Card is the first sign of a failed argument.....

And did you expect anything different from an obama supporter. I am surprised it took this long for the race card to come out.

By the way Dar.

Excellent seed.

Know what's amazing is alot of these ppl call themselves compassionate christians yet too often i think the 'compassion' part is missing ESPECIALLY since Pres Obama came into the picture.

Brent and Dana-- how you forget that Bush called any resister to his war of lies as unpatriotic and unamerican. at least the whitey 'racist' tea baggers, 912'ers, death panelers weren't booked and hauled to the police station for exercising their first amendment you should revisit the anti war (dem) protesters that were arrested for wearing a anti bush tshirt at a bush rally (hmm and they're weren't carrying guns like so many on your crazy right do to prove a point)

Bush never called anyone unpatriotic for opposing the war. Right wing talking heads did, but not Bush.

"Whitey racists"?

You are incendiary and provide absolutely nothing of substance to respond to.

Many times Bush would couch his attacks in this way:

"Some may say we don't need to attack the enemies of America"

or

"Some people may think that we should just treat the people who attacked America
as simple criminals using normal police and court processes."

Something along those lines. And he would do it often. The message was crystal clear though: if you don't approve of my incompetent and failed war ideas then you are with the terrorists and not against them. He left it to his goons to get more specific.

Even White House reporters got the runaround from Obama's press secretary. I'd never seen anything like that before.

Then you weren't looking very carefully at any of the press briefings during the last three or four Presidencies.

The way obama and his supporters are taking the country, bullets may be come reality soon enough

I doubt that very much DanaR. Most people are big talkers, but when it comes to actual shooting they are cowards. A few far right loons may try to start something, but they will be easily handled by the police. I doubt the Nat Guard will even be necessary. The rest of the bigmouths will be hiding under their beds s**ting razor blades.

DanaR

Not gonna happen....because OBAMA's going to take your guns AND bullets!!!!!

Run for the hills, RUN!!! The sky is falling!!! Run!!!!

dana-- if i didn't know better I'd think that was a threat? yah we're all marching the streets with guns and semi's shooting ppl in churces. oh wait that's YOUR group. my bad.

no we actually were fed up with the lies and distortions of your republicans and decided to 'take back our country' from the lunatic fringe. you seem to forget in all this tea party hypocrisy, that Bush started the Aig and bank bailouts, Bush had the biggest spending increase than any president so far http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/09/29/couricandco/entry4486228.shtml Bush led us into a war on lies costing us BILLIONS and countless deaths. (guess what osama is still out there) Bush cut taxes and now we're paying for it. I could go on. you are calling the kettle black. please recognize your OWN party's failures if you can stomach it

But, but . . . they've got Chuck Norris on their side! We won't stand a chance if Chuck is leading them!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/09/chuck-norris-volunteers-t_n_173182.html

mstanley, I'm glad you mentioned that part about real bullets. American tanks deliberately targeted a hotel in Baghdad where journalists were known to be staying, and killed a number of them. Al Jazeera's headquarters was targeted, and Al Jazeera reporters have been imprisoned by the U.S. despite no evidence whatsoever of involvement in terrorism. Has Obama done anything like that?

DanaR, you may recall that the last time that was tried, by Timothy McVeigh, it didn't work out too well. So before you go charging out across the battle field, better look over your shoulder and see how many are actually behind you -- especially before you blow up a building that contains a child day-care center.

Oh trex, don't tell him that. The best thing for America is for smack-talkers like DanaR to go charging out and get cut down.

hvymtl83

The best thing for America is for smack-talkers like DanaR to go charging out and get cut down.

Don't dismiss him so lightly. When the economic collapse resumes, millions more -- current Obama supporters among them -- will lose their jobs and their health insurance. When the people ultimately grasp that the "stimulus" was all smoke and mirrors and they can't find any work, they will become highly agitated. In cities and suburbs, all it takes is a few hotheads with lots of free time on their hands to get together and gang up. Then crowd psychology takes over.

In March I sold my house 20 miles east of Ground Zero and moved to the sticks. Some would call that paranoia, I call it being prepared. Besides, it's much nicer out here ... people are friendly, scenery is to die for, lots of animals ...

Arleta

it is obvious by this comment that the right wingers (not all, but some on this post) are too stupid to realize that obama and his government are not the culprits of the occurrences in this country.

Really now? You evidently missed the mischief Obama and the Democratic Congress have been up to.

As well as the AMA, labor unions, especially the federal employee labor union, NEA, NAACP, and a host of other abc's control the Democrats through their lobbing.

I would wager you, do the research I bet you find that those evil rich companies give more money to Democrats than Republicans. Then and all the leftist groups.

Now who is realy on the take.

Not I am completely absolving the Republicans, their hands are bloody also.

Arleta

health insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies essentially control congress through lobbying (and millions of dollars) and will try their darnedest to usurp any attempt to reform healthcare.

You'll get no argument from me there. Peep this.

President Obama was not in office when the financial meltdown occurred! no matter how many times i mention this, and how apparent its "duh" factor is, I do not see one thing even suggesting that. So tell me again...what did obama have to do with the economic crisis in the fall of '08?

Umm, nothing. When did I say otherwise?

if you are going to whine about a little over 100K (presidential campaign kickbacks)

Whine? Nay, that's what liberals do. I was merely documenting his acceptance of legalized graft. And although $100,000 isn't a whole lot of money, it goes a long way for buying favors like votes. Here's some insight into the Fannie/Freddie meltdown.

Not likely.

Actually it is obama and his supporters that are the threats to our form of government

Dana,

Would that be the American form of government, or the Republican form, otherwise known as corporatisrm?

Lone Ranger, no wonder they're panicky. For 8 years they cheered on Bush and Cheney while they illegally grabbed as much power for the executive branch as they could get their hands on. And now, suddenly -- oops! All those powers are in the hands of a Democratic President.

Lone Ranger-1249924

Dana,

Would that be the American form of government, or the Republican form, otherwise known as corporatisrm?

I'll answer that one.

Our form of government isn't the adjective Republican with a capital R. It's the noun republic. That word is a contraction of the Latin res publica, which translates to "public thing", with the thing being the law.

trex-138069

Lone Ranger, no wonder they're panicky.

Sue you've been on quite the tear today. Who are "they"? I've never met them. ETs mebbe? Sure as hell none in evidence in my former hood in Nassau County, NY or the new one, which teems with conservatives.

DanaR,

I got your back!

God Bless the USA!!!!!

Arleta

since you still think this country is a democratic, federal republic

It is on paper. In practice though it has degenerated into an oligarchy with the ruling class spanning the public and private sectors.

I would argue the reverse is the reality.

I'd rather be "fired up" than "on the juice". See you in 2010.

I'm not the least bit angry. To give you another quote: Give them enough rope..they'll hang themselves". This is exactly what Obama and his cronies are doing to themselves....Now, it's starting to get funny to watch. I find it hard to believe that people with this level of poor intelligence are in high paying positions, and even trying to run the country. Good Lord...hope we can just hang on long enough..til 2010......In the meantime, thank goodness we have news media stations and radio stations like FOX that will report the TRUTH!!! and report real news!!!!

hvymtl83

I love how the righties are getting all fired up over this.

LOL. You're just seeing what you want to see. I for one find it amusing that POTUS has his panties in a knot about FOXNews.

Apparently Don Imus does as well. The week before he began his new show on FBN, Neil Cavuto interviewed him in the studio. The discussion wound its way to Obama and Imus's job description. Imus remarked, "My job is to comment on the freak parade, and he's one of them."

Rickace: Now, were you singing the same tune when the Bush administration went after NBC?

trex-138069

Now, were you singing the same tune when the Bush administration went after NBC?

Nice try at shunting the discussion off to Bush. It's been nearly a year but ya just can't stop biting his ankles, can you now?

I didn't know it was going on at the time. And I'm certain the whole thing was so thoroughly covered by the media and the left-wing moonbats that adding my own voice would have been highly redundant.

Remember to report fishy rumors, comrade :-)

In other words, no, when the Bush administration committed REAL abuses against free speech, you ignored them. Now, all Obama has done is to exercise HIS right of free speech to respond to lies and smears, and Fox's whining shrieks of victimization can be heard in Timbuktu.

trex-138069

In other words, no, when the Bush administration committed REAL abuses against free speech, you ignored them.

Off-topic.

Now, all Obama has done is to exercise HIS right of free speech to respond to lies and smears, and Fox's whining shrieks of victimization can be heard in Timbuktu.

Ahh, back on topic. As if I gave a hoot about FOX. And Obama's still got his panties in a knot.

Arleta

you had eight years under bush to steer America and dropped the ball

From page 34 of the Online Debating Handbook For Left Wingers:

When you have nothing else to argue with, bring up Bush.

Why are you not focusing your anger on the culprits that threaten America???

I don't have anger, but there's definitely a Culprit in Chief. And that's just his first six months on the job. I shudder to think of what harebrained schemes he'll visit upon the nation next.

Arleta

Well thats true...republicans had a president in office for eight years....and now a democrat is in office and all of a sudden the sky is falling.

Nay. Bush was a trainwreck, and Obama is more of the same. The sky's been falling for years now.

grow up.

Nastiness doesn't behoove you.

1.) Deny any and all truth that threatens your ideology

Are you referring to something I posted? If so, please cite it.

Ignore the fact that corporations control congress, the president, and senate.

I do exactly the opposite. I highlight it routinely. Like here. And here.

When all else fails, resort to violence and empty threats to intimidate.

Like these empty threats perhaps? Man, can you imagine if people did that @!$%# to Obama? The whackiest of all came from that broad Betty Williams who won the Nobel Peace Prize of all things. You just can't make that stuff up.

Arleta

1. Bush's term and the financial crisis have no correlation. @!$%# happened on his watch. It will continue and worsen under President Obama's watch, again without correlation.

2. Bush didn't "inherit" anything. He volunteered for the job, as did President Obama.

3. The stock market and the crude oil market could care less about the current POTUS, so don't even go there.

4. WMDs ... he was as wrong as anyone.

5. The Patriot Act was a bi-partisan knee-jerk reaction.

Rickace: And it was just Bush's bad luck that he HAPPENED to be in office while all this was going on, due to no actions of his own. Obama, on the other hand, will be considered guilty of everything and anything that happens in the world on his watch, because -- well, just BECAUSE! He had the presumptuous gall to win an office that is supposed to belong to Republicans by divine right. He deserves it.

Arleta

funny thing rick, it is obvious you made no complaints of the way bush was running office

Really now? On numerous occasions I've criticized Bush for both the military invasions and the trillions of new debt we accrued during his two terms in office. Selective hearing on your part perhaps?

it is obvious you have a grudge against obama and expect malice of him because he is the candidate you did not want in office.

Oh please. McCain/Palin wasn't a viable choice either. I stayed home on Election Day. I expect him to govern sensibly, yet he's doing pretty much the opposite. What's your problem? Criticism of Republicans is OK but lay off the Democrats?

Like i said before...grow up.

I did. Long ago. Your turn now.

Word of advice: try looking for solutions to the country's problem instead of perpetuating the right versus left schism that is widening in this country.

Take your own advice. Bringing up Bush serves only to prosecute your own agenda of right versus left.

trex-138069

#16.14 is so laden with distortions and flamebait it amounts to a mere troll. Sorry, I don't feed trolls.

Arleta

That is what im trying to say but you are deliberately ignoring that fact to perpetuate your anti-obama agenda.

The only anti-Obama agenda in evidence is the one fabricated by your fertile imagination. I object to his policies, not to the man himself. Big difference, and one you're apparently incapable of grasping.

What ever happened to the conservative mantra of "support our commander-in-chief" ?

I support him with my federal income taxes. Again, what is your problem? Can you not tolerate rational criticism of a Democratic president's policies?

the fact that you stayed home on one of the most dramatic elections in our country's history says a lot about your character....

What an arrogant thing to say. You know not one thing about my character.

You could type "Aliens land at Roswell" and get more hits than that. Come on, just because a lot of people are repeating the Fox party line doesn't make it true. FYI, I did exactly that Google experiment, and didn't see a single site that I would regard as reliable.

Aww Tyler

I had that great riposte to t-rex's remark and ya killed it. That was the high point of my day!

Party pooper :P

tyler

Hey, pretty much anyone can be with a Hollywood makeover!

Nohandouts, comedy shows that are clearly meant as entertainment can still promote misinformation. Doesn't it bother you at all that a lot of people still think Sarah Palin said "I can see Russia from my house!" when in fact it was Tina Fey who said that in a comedy sketch?

No, you think the American public is stupid like CNN does-?

I don't think the public is stupid, but I KNOW it is capable of believing misinformation, whether it comes from a comedy sketch or a viral e-mail.

Doesn't it bother you at all that a lot of people still think Sarah Palin said "I can see Russia from my house!" when in fact it was Tina Fey who said that in a comedy sketch?

That's because in essense she did. No, it wasn't verbatim. But when Katie Couric, that hard-hitting journalist, asked her about her foreign policy experience, her answer was that essentially Russia is right next door.

trex-138069

There ya go again, derailing the seed into a self-serving Palin bash.

trex-138069

Has Obama threatened any journalists with prosecution?

Not yet. There's still over three years to go though. He's got his panties in a knot about FOXNews so that's presumably where he'd start.

Oh yes. It's not what he's actually done, it's what we're so terribly, terribly afraid he MIGHT do! Yes, by all means, hold a pre-emptive impeachment, and accuse him of high crimes and misdemeanors that haven't actually been committed yet but probably will be. After all, isn't it the same concept as preventative detention?

trex-138069

It's not what he's actually done, it's what we're so terribly, terribly afraid he MIGHT do!

LOL. I'm not afraid of that empty suit.

Yes, by all means, hold a pre-emptive impeachment, and accuse him of high crimes and misdemeanors that haven't actually been committed yet but probably will be.

??

You're going off the deep end there.

Well, whether or not you're "afraid," you spend an awful lot of time attacking him with verbs in the future tense.

trex-138069

Well, whether or not you're "afraid," you spend an awful lot of time attacking him with verbs in the future tense.

Attacking? That's quite a distortion. The only attacks in evidence are those devised by your own vivid imagination. I occasionally make forecasts, but again those are not attacks.

Now I do criticize the president frequently, but only on what he has planned to do or actually has done of course. Here are six things I've written about already. Feel free to debate any of them.

Here's what you said just three posts ago, in response to my inquirey "Has Obama threatened any journalists with prosecution?"

You wrote: "Not yet. There's still over three years to go though. He's got his panties in a knot about FOXNews so that's presumably where he'd start." That looks to me like condemning Obama based on absolutely unfounded speculation about what you think he "MIGHT" do in the future. Thin stuff.

I'm not condemning but merely speculating. You really need to stop distorting my words.

That looks to me like condemning Obama based on absolutely unfounded speculation about what you think he "MIGHT" do in the future. Thin stuff.

Hey, it worked for the Nobel committee!

fedupwithliberals

Hey, it worked for the Nobel committee!

Haha you rascal, I wish I'd thought of that!

trex-138069

Now, let's talk about what the Obama White House HAS done.

Cough. Snicker.

Republicans apparently think that the First Amendment guarantees freedom of getting the last word in every argument, but only for people who agree with them. Sorry, doesn't work that way.

Democrats apparently think that the First Amendment guarantees that they can stand their ground in a debate. From what I've observed on the Vine, that's just not so. For many, their idea of "debate" is to belittle me with adjectives like "delusional". Others take to distorting my words, and at times even making things up which I then refute by requiring them to link to a post of mine that supports their claim.

I would relish an opportunity to debate the president on the merits of the stimulus, but there's no way he would subject himself to scrutiny on that program. I doubt he even has much faith in it, much less the wherewithal to refute my arguments.

Ah well, so it goes, fishy rumors and all. Comrade Sue, remember, if you hear a conservative warn a brother.

;-}

I don't see a lot of rational debate in THAT post, Rickace, nor do I see a shortage of name-calling or innuendo.

As it happens, I have not called you "delusional," at least not on this thread. (I may have elsewhere; honestly don't remember.) But I am very happy right here and right now to call you a hypocrite for piously condemning Obama as an enemy of free speech when all he's done is respond to lies and smears. Bush, who actually did attack freedom of the press, got a pass from conservatives for eight years.

trex-138069

I don't see a lot of rational debate in THAT post, Rickace

I don't debate every time I post. Go figure.

As it happens, I have not called you "delusional," at least not on this thread.

It was some other leftie, not you.

(I may have elsewhere; honestly don't remember.)

And you'd have been wrong, as are all your leftie playmates who indulge in insults drawn from pop psychology. When a trained mental health care professional interviews me and diagnoses me as delusional, I'll believe it. At last check I'm playing with all 52 cards.

But I am very happy right here and right now to call you a hypocrite for piously condemning Obama as an enemy of free speech when all he's done is respond to lies and smears.

I condemned Obama? Really now? Please post a link.

Bush, who actually did attack freedom of the press, got a pass from conservatives for eight years.

Off-topic.

No it is NOT off topic, because the hypocrisy of Fox News and its defenders is even more astounding in this case than in most. Bush really did threaten journalists with prosecution, he did pay pundits to support his party line, he did distribute videos promoting the White House agenda that were made to look like news reports and were sent to local TV stations that often aired them as "news" rather than as political announcements, and on and on and on. When Bush's press secretary condemned NBC in much the same terms that Obama's has condemned Fox, did you say a word about it? No, you didn't even notice it. And the reason you didn't is that the "liberal" media didn't make a particular issue of it the way they're doing now.

It is not off-topic, it's showing the hypocrisy of the argument. You just don't want to hear it because it means you don't have a leg to stand on. The fact of the matter is, while the people on FOX are free to say what they want, the 1st amendment does not say that they have a right to interview ANYONE, I don't care if it's the president or some random person on the street. Freedom of speech is just that, speech. It does not mean that people have to listen to you yammer on either, it's not a guarantee of an audience.

Shrug. I hardly ever even turn on my TV anymore, and cut my cable subscription back to "basic" because I was sick of paying for something I hardly ever used. Guess what? I get more timely news from the Internet now.

The FOX News Channel!

I don't know if shame is the right word...more like a Chavez Thang! Well, it's a start!

Show me a shred of evidence that he's declared "war" on anyone. Calling someone out on lies and bias is NOT war. Threatening NY Times reporters with arrest, as Bush did -- now, that's getting closer. Opening fire on an Al Jazeera headquarters -- that's the real deal.

trex, you don't send your henchmen to the "media" and say the things they said. It's a clear strategy and colloboration war of words my friend.

What "henchmen?" How did they threaten anyone?

Threats?

I can recall an incident several years ago when a caller to Bill O'Riely's show pretended to be a RW supporter during the screening process, but then contradicted, with facts, the point Bill O was making.

Bill O threatened to come after the guy, told him he could be found and he would be sorry when FOX came to his door! Very uncool...

Bill O threatened to come after the guy, told him he could be found and he would be sorry when FOX came to his door! Very uncool...

Please provide a link.

Link, schmink. O'Reilly is famous for threatening people who disagree with him, screaming at whomever challenges him and shutting them off if they refuse to back down.* Face it, that's why you like him. He's a bully and a coward. He's a perfect reich-winger. Why pretend you need proof for the stuff you know you admire about him?

*Possibly the most egregiously cowardly thing he pulled was screaming at what a punk one of the children of a person killed on 9/11 was for not agreeing with torture and the Iraq war. Don't pretend, reich-wingers, that that didn't happen. Reich-wing blogs were full of verbal high-fives for weeks based on that shameful O'Reilly performance.

The Pres declares war on FNC; he declares war on me. It's a damn shame.

Yeah, and after all that goodwill and moral support you've given him. Your tears are well earned, my child. Cry yourself a river.

Here's the link (with recording)...

CALLER: I like to listen to you during the day, I think Keith Olbermann's show --

O'REILLY: There ya go, Mike is -- he's a gone guy. You know, we have his -- we have your phone numbers, by the way. So, if you're listening, Mike, we have your phone number, and we're going to turn it over to Fox security, and you'll be getting a little visit.

O'Reilly threatened Radio Show Caller With 'A Little Visit' from Fox Security

Hillarious! Mike Stark? Do a little research on him before blasting O'Reilly for not wanting to deal with him on air.

This story became a distinction.