Spring Break
Obama's anger with Fox News stems from immaturity
Abstract:
When Obama was elected president, he suggested that he was going to usher in a new era of transparency and non-partisan politics in America. His proponents claimed that he was the smartest, most educated and most tolerant name on the election ballot in perhaps decades....
- Displaying 1 - 36 of 36
Josh Phillips
posted 10/27/09 @ 8:31 AM MST
Correction: I mistakenly wrote "fantasy football" picks when the actual issue I intended to refer to was Obama's "March Madness" picks. The editors were notified of this mistake before print, but somehow it still managed to sneak onto the page.
James
posted 10/27/09 @ 8:53 AM MST
Your most glaring mistake in your attack piece is to equate Fox News to the "loyal opposition." If Fox were only a conservative news organization and acted as such; if it truly were a loyal opposition I would wholeheartedly agree with your remarks. In that case the Obama administration's reaction would be out of step and incongruous.
But unfortunately Fox has crossed the line from a news organization into a political organization by it's creation of and support of anti-government rallies and strong politically motivated ties to the extreme Right wing platform. A true news organization only reports the news; it doesn't and shouldn't *create* the news. By entering into the political arena, by creating and supporting anti-government organizations it has made itself into a political organization in addition to being a news organization.
Now Fox has every right to do this, of course. A corporation has the right to hold rallies and gather political support for whatever cause they deem fit. A true news organization should not do this of course, but it has the right to. That is not the issue. But since it has placed it's hat in the political arena, Fox and it's viewers should not be surprised when it's active political ambitions are reacted to negatively. The administration is simply reacting to Fox as a very strong and extremely partisan corporate *political* power, which it is. And every administration (right, left or independent) has the right to react negatively to any opposing political organization.
The fact that Fox is also a news organization is beside the point.
But unfortunately Fox has crossed the line from a news organization into a political organization by it's creation of and support of anti-government rallies and strong politically motivated ties to the extreme Right wing platform. A true news organization only reports the news; it doesn't and shouldn't *create* the news. By entering into the political arena, by creating and supporting anti-government organizations it has made itself into a political organization in addition to being a news organization.
Now Fox has every right to do this, of course. A corporation has the right to hold rallies and gather political support for whatever cause they deem fit. A true news organization should not do this of course, but it has the right to. That is not the issue. But since it has placed it's hat in the political arena, Fox and it's viewers should not be surprised when it's active political ambitions are reacted to negatively. The administration is simply reacting to Fox as a very strong and extremely partisan corporate *political* power, which it is. And every administration (right, left or independent) has the right to react negatively to any opposing political organization.
The fact that Fox is also a news organization is beside the point.
Registered Independent
posted 10/27/09 @ 2:06 PM MST
What on earth are you talking about? You sound like you have been on Mars for the last six months, and then mistakenly asked MSNBC to fill you in when you got back.
Fox News never "created . . . anti-government rallies". First of all, there have not BEEN any "anti-government" rallies. There have been anti-tax-increase rallies, called Tea Parties. And one Fox political commentator, not a newsman, attended one of them. He didn't "create" them.
And Fox was the ONLY news channel to really cover the sea change in public opinion on display at the Town Hall meetings. Their coverage of which made it apparent that the majority of voters do not want this socialized medicine bill. The people for the other side, those for socialized medicine, didn't even show up at the Town Hall meetings. Because they are primarily ACORN types, who only show up when they are paid to do so. And ACORN can't be paid to show up now that the campaign is over.
You have obviously been listening to that loon Keith Olberman's creative "re-interpretation" of what Fox News is doing, instead of checking it out for yourself.
*
Fox News never "created . . . anti-government rallies". First of all, there have not BEEN any "anti-government" rallies. There have been anti-tax-increase rallies, called Tea Parties. And one Fox political commentator, not a newsman, attended one of them. He didn't "create" them.
And Fox was the ONLY news channel to really cover the sea change in public opinion on display at the Town Hall meetings. Their coverage of which made it apparent that the majority of voters do not want this socialized medicine bill. The people for the other side, those for socialized medicine, didn't even show up at the Town Hall meetings. Because they are primarily ACORN types, who only show up when they are paid to do so. And ACORN can't be paid to show up now that the campaign is over.
You have obviously been listening to that loon Keith Olberman's creative "re-interpretation" of what Fox News is doing, instead of checking it out for yourself.
*
Originally posted byJames
Your most glaring mistake in your attack piece is to equate Fox News to the "loyal opposition." If Fox were only a conservative news organization and acted as such; if it truly were a loyal opposition I would wholeheartedly agree with your remarks. In that case the Obama administration's reaction would be out of step and incongruous.
But unfortunately Fox has crossed the line from a news organization into a political organization by it's creation of and support of anti-government rallies and strong politically motivated ties to the extreme Right wing platform. A true news organization only reports the news; it doesn't and shouldn't *create* the news. By entering into the political arena, by creating and supporting anti-government organizations it has made itself into a political organization in addition to being a news organization.
Now Fox has every right to do this, of course. A corporation has the right to hold rallies and gather political support for whatever cause they deem fit. A true news organization should not do this of course, but it has the right to. That is not the issue. But since it has placed it's hat in the political arena, Fox and it's viewers should not be surprised when it's active political ambitions are reacted to negatively. The administration is simply reacting to Fox as a very strong and extremely partisan corporate *political* power, which it is. And every administration (right, left or independent) has the right to react negatively to any opposing political organization.
The fact that Fox is also a news organization is beside the point.
Sandra
posted 10/27/09 @ 12:10 PM MST
"A true news organization only reports the news; it doesn't and shouldn't *create* the news."
If this is true, then we have no true news organizations and haven't for ... well, I'll just say a very long time. News organizations always slant what they present depending upon how they want the news to look. That's easy to tell when you are on the inside of the story and see how they present only certain facts and not all of them. Those certain facts slant the story as the news organizations want it to appear.
Now, I admit that Fox News seems to be leaning very heavily toward the conservative side these days. Maybe they did before as well but it seems rather blatant now. The reason for this may be that they are the only news organization that offers any resistance to the images Obama and his friends want to present. They don't swallow everything coming from the Congress and White House hook, line and sinker. You sure aren't seeing very many questions from the news organizations that seemed to crucify Bush, rightly or wrongly. They hardly question Obama, much less ask the right questions. In the very few instances where they might have, they let him slide when he doesn't answer the question.
But the author has a very good point that it is childish behavior on the part of Obama to take the actions he has against Fox. To declare a war on a news agency? Give me a break! Doesn't D.C. have enough work to do without being petty this way. I certainly expect the holder of the highest office in the land, the office that supposedly represents ALL of the U.S.'s citizens, to be above this type of petty behavior and to act with graciousness. Isn't this the man with all the charm? Let him charm Fox and their viewers with real answers and real thoughts behind those answers.
If this is true, then we have no true news organizations and haven't for ... well, I'll just say a very long time. News organizations always slant what they present depending upon how they want the news to look. That's easy to tell when you are on the inside of the story and see how they present only certain facts and not all of them. Those certain facts slant the story as the news organizations want it to appear.
Now, I admit that Fox News seems to be leaning very heavily toward the conservative side these days. Maybe they did before as well but it seems rather blatant now. The reason for this may be that they are the only news organization that offers any resistance to the images Obama and his friends want to present. They don't swallow everything coming from the Congress and White House hook, line and sinker. You sure aren't seeing very many questions from the news organizations that seemed to crucify Bush, rightly or wrongly. They hardly question Obama, much less ask the right questions. In the very few instances where they might have, they let him slide when he doesn't answer the question.
But the author has a very good point that it is childish behavior on the part of Obama to take the actions he has against Fox. To declare a war on a news agency? Give me a break! Doesn't D.C. have enough work to do without being petty this way. I certainly expect the holder of the highest office in the land, the office that supposedly represents ALL of the U.S.'s citizens, to be above this type of petty behavior and to act with graciousness. Isn't this the man with all the charm? Let him charm Fox and their viewers with real answers and real thoughts behind those answers.
Registered Independent
posted 10/27/09 @ 12:14 PM MST
Response to this article:
The very next day after the Obama white house declared war on Fox News, Sally Quinn of Washington Post fame made a point of appearing on Fox News.
Yes, the very same Sally Quinn who is married to Ben Bradlee, who gave the go-ahead for Woodward and Bernstein to keep talking to Deep Throat and keep investigating Richard Nixon for the Washington Post. Eventually resulting in Nixon's downfall.
Sally Quinn obviously decided to appear on Fox because Fox is the only news outlet (either print or electronic media) that has been doing any investigative reporting on Barak Obama's administration.
It was Fox who broke the ACORN scandal story, recently resulting in ACORN's congressional funding being yanked. Because the story was true. It was also Fox who investigated one of Obama's czars, a Marxist named Van Jones. That story was also true, resulting in Van Jones's midnight resignation from the Obama administration about a month ago. Fox is practically the only news organization that has publicized the fact that Obama has an internet "enemies list" who receive "re-education" spam from the white house. Very similar to Nixon's enemies list.
In a nutshell, what the Obama administration is trying to do is to stop Fox News from doing any more of this investigative reporting.
Obama is apparently very worried about Fox doing any further investigations which result in these accurate but unflattering news stories. Makes one wonder what he is so worried they will uncover.
The Washington Post has impeccable liberal credentials. Up until now, they also had been the only news organization with a history of genuinely investigating a sitting president. They played a huge role in bringing down Nixon.
It is no coincidence that Sally Quinn has now appeared twice on Fox News in the last month or so. The second time in direct defiance of a white house directive to news outlets to "ignore" Fox News, to not appear on that channel, and not even pick up on their breaking stories.
Ms. Quinn, in her latest interview on Fox last Friday, stated that almost the entire media "establishment" quietly agrees with her that the white house's war on Fox News is "dumb". She also was somewhat surprised and rather put out by Barak Obama's behavior on this issue. And defensive of Fox. Her criticism was aimed entirely at the Obama administration.
Now there's a journalist. One who knows what she is talking about. And has managed to keep her journalistic distance from this charming socialist of a president that we have on our hands.
A round of applause is due for Ben Bradlee, Sally Quinn, and The Washington Post for speaking up on this issue very publicly. They have managed to maintain their journalistic objectivity even though the political shoe is now on the opposite foot than it was 35 years ago.
The very next day after the Obama white house declared war on Fox News, Sally Quinn of Washington Post fame made a point of appearing on Fox News.
Yes, the very same Sally Quinn who is married to Ben Bradlee, who gave the go-ahead for Woodward and Bernstein to keep talking to Deep Throat and keep investigating Richard Nixon for the Washington Post. Eventually resulting in Nixon's downfall.
Sally Quinn obviously decided to appear on Fox because Fox is the only news outlet (either print or electronic media) that has been doing any investigative reporting on Barak Obama's administration.
It was Fox who broke the ACORN scandal story, recently resulting in ACORN's congressional funding being yanked. Because the story was true. It was also Fox who investigated one of Obama's czars, a Marxist named Van Jones. That story was also true, resulting in Van Jones's midnight resignation from the Obama administration about a month ago. Fox is practically the only news organization that has publicized the fact that Obama has an internet "enemies list" who receive "re-education" spam from the white house. Very similar to Nixon's enemies list.
In a nutshell, what the Obama administration is trying to do is to stop Fox News from doing any more of this investigative reporting.
Obama is apparently very worried about Fox doing any further investigations which result in these accurate but unflattering news stories. Makes one wonder what he is so worried they will uncover.
The Washington Post has impeccable liberal credentials. Up until now, they also had been the only news organization with a history of genuinely investigating a sitting president. They played a huge role in bringing down Nixon.
It is no coincidence that Sally Quinn has now appeared twice on Fox News in the last month or so. The second time in direct defiance of a white house directive to news outlets to "ignore" Fox News, to not appear on that channel, and not even pick up on their breaking stories.
Ms. Quinn, in her latest interview on Fox last Friday, stated that almost the entire media "establishment" quietly agrees with her that the white house's war on Fox News is "dumb". She also was somewhat surprised and rather put out by Barak Obama's behavior on this issue. And defensive of Fox. Her criticism was aimed entirely at the Obama administration.
Now there's a journalist. One who knows what she is talking about. And has managed to keep her journalistic distance from this charming socialist of a president that we have on our hands.
A round of applause is due for Ben Bradlee, Sally Quinn, and The Washington Post for speaking up on this issue very publicly. They have managed to maintain their journalistic objectivity even though the political shoe is now on the opposite foot than it was 35 years ago.
Zach
posted 10/27/09 @ 8:01 PM MST
Obama vs. Fox News=What you get when you vote in a fraud of a president with no experience whatsoever.
Thomas Anderson
posted 10/28/09 @ 10:07 PM MST
Originally posted byZach
Obama vs. Fox News=What you get when you vote in a fraud of a president with no experience whatsoever.
Wow! Quite the embarrassing statement there Zach. Tell me, what sort of experience would qualify one for presidency? Please be specific in your justification.
Also, what makes you think George W. Bush didn't do the exact same thing with news organizations he didn't like? Oh that's right! You wouldn't know that because FOX news didn't tell you. How weird... what a wide world of information awaits you if you only look for it.
Here's a suggestion- why don't you take off your narrow minded zealot hat (even for just a day, you can put it right back on whenever being rational becomes too difficult to bear), stop watching mainstream media outlets (MSNBC, FOX, CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS) and turn on PBS or CSPAN (though CSPAN is pretty rough).
You'd do well to give it a shot.
Zach
posted 10/29/09 @ 6:59 PM MST
Experience I would like to see in a president:
1. Any kind of experience leading something, like a state.
2. Any experience with foreign affairs.
3. Any experience with executive powers of something, again like a state.
Just to name a few.
And just so you know, I don't watch FOX NEWS or any of the other big time news stations. I know that they all have their own agendas. They ALL are pathetic. And when did I say anything about Bush at all? Uh...reply to what I said, not the words you put in my mouth. It's amazing how you leftists can gain so much about someone in ONE sentence.
1. Any kind of experience leading something, like a state.
2. Any experience with foreign affairs.
3. Any experience with executive powers of something, again like a state.
Just to name a few.
And just so you know, I don't watch FOX NEWS or any of the other big time news stations. I know that they all have their own agendas. They ALL are pathetic. And when did I say anything about Bush at all? Uh...reply to what I said, not the words you put in my mouth. It's amazing how you leftists can gain so much about someone in ONE sentence.
Thomas Anderson
posted 10/30/09 @ 5:07 PM MST
Originally posted byZach
Experience I would like to see in a president:
1. Any kind of experience leading something, like a state.
2. Any experience with foreign affairs.
3. Any experience with executive powers of something, again like a state.
Just to name a few.
And just so you know, I don't watch FOX NEWS or any of the other big time news stations. I know that they all have their own agendas. They ALL are pathetic. And when did I say anything about Bush at all? Uh...reply to what I said, not the words you put in my mouth. It's amazing how you leftists can gain so much about someone in ONE sentence.
Please don't mistake my comments for being based off your one sentence, they are based off all your sentences I've seen throughout the message boards here.
If we were to judge presidential candidates purely from experience McCain would have been a much better pick- strictly speaking in years of experience. Then again, Bush Jr. delegated all of his decisions to his cabinet, so his experience as Gov. of Texas really didn't matter.
Following your train of logic regarding experience, Al Gore would have been a much better pick than George Bush jr. Why? Not only was he a Representative and Senator in Congress, but also served alongside the President as Vice President for 8 years. 8 years of experience in foreign affairs and domestic issues, right along the actual president, wow!
So in 2000, if you were of voting age, did you/would you have voted for Gore over Bush? Or did 6 years as governor of Texas, though he had no experience in Washington or in foreign affairs, give Bush more presidential ready experience? I won't use your answer against you and I apologize for any past aggressiveness.
Zach
posted 10/30/09 @ 8:54 PM MST
I apologize for my aggressiveness as well, I know how it gets with politics. Things get heated, it's all good and I don't hold it against anyone. I appreciate the fact that you actually have legitimate questions as well, instead of simply saying I'm narrow and baseless. I love to debate/discuss and it is nice to see someone who can do this instead of simply attack me for my views.
Anyway to your proposed questions and theories.
I feel that our president should have some kind of experience leading something, as I said previously. That doesn't mean that more experience=better. I just would prefer to see some experience. McCain was/is a joke. I honestly wouldn't like him as a president either. He wouldn't take a strong stand on anything, it was pathetic. That being said, I appreciate what he did for this country. I just don't think he's a good choice to lead the country.
As for the Gore/Bush election, I wasn't of voting age yet. I would have voted for Bush though, and I admit that back then I didn't take an interest in politics and believed (R)=good (D)=bad. Now I'm beginning to take more of an interest and I'm proud to say I voted for neither McCain nor Obama.
I did vote for Bush over Kerry, and happily admit it. I went into that election with an open mind but couldn't get over Kerry's flop-flopping. I watched debates when he would say that it was a good and important thing that we went into Iraq and then right after he said we had no business going into Iraq. This country can't afford that, as we're seeing with our current president.
I'm not saying experience is everything, it most definitely isn't. But having a leader who knows what to do in certain situations based on his/her past experiences versus a leader who has never encountered such things because he/she has only been a political figure for a short amount of time seems like the wiser thing to do.
Anyway to your proposed questions and theories.
I feel that our president should have some kind of experience leading something, as I said previously. That doesn't mean that more experience=better. I just would prefer to see some experience. McCain was/is a joke. I honestly wouldn't like him as a president either. He wouldn't take a strong stand on anything, it was pathetic. That being said, I appreciate what he did for this country. I just don't think he's a good choice to lead the country.
As for the Gore/Bush election, I wasn't of voting age yet. I would have voted for Bush though, and I admit that back then I didn't take an interest in politics and believed (R)=good (D)=bad. Now I'm beginning to take more of an interest and I'm proud to say I voted for neither McCain nor Obama.
I did vote for Bush over Kerry, and happily admit it. I went into that election with an open mind but couldn't get over Kerry's flop-flopping. I watched debates when he would say that it was a good and important thing that we went into Iraq and then right after he said we had no business going into Iraq. This country can't afford that, as we're seeing with our current president.
I'm not saying experience is everything, it most definitely isn't. But having a leader who knows what to do in certain situations based on his/her past experiences versus a leader who has never encountered such things because he/she has only been a political figure for a short amount of time seems like the wiser thing to do.
Chris
posted 11/07/09 @ 4:30 PM MST
I'm confused... are you talking about Obama or George W.?
Huh?
posted 10/27/09 @ 11:39 PM MST
"Say what you will about George W. Bush, but he never acted like a spoiled child when he came under fire."
GW stopped giving press time to MSNBC because they were critical of his policies (http://thinkprogress.org/2009/10/19/perino-msnbc/), and his staff wrote letters to NBC complaining they presented opinions rather than facts (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/05/gillespies_letter_to_nbc_news.html). Sound familiar? If it's childish when Obama does it, it was childish of GW, too.
GW stopped giving press time to MSNBC because they were critical of his policies (http://thinkprogress.org/2009/10/19/perino-msnbc/), and his staff wrote letters to NBC complaining they presented opinions rather than facts (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/05/gillespies_letter_to_nbc_news.html). Sound familiar? If it's childish when Obama does it, it was childish of GW, too.
James
posted 10/28/09 @ 11:37 AM MST
First off, I never said that Fox has not been doing needful investigation. It has, and I think it should continue to do so. In that Fox does do what is needed to fill the "loyal opposition" that was originally mentioned. Although I'd rather they weren't so extreme in their views at times, they still do a service. I really don't understand why you thought I said otherwise except to unconsciously place me with the rabid anti-Fox leftists, of which I am not. (I'm a rare breed: a centrist.)
Secondly, yes, I watch MSNBC. But I also follow CNN, Fox, the Post, the Times, and a host of other news organizations. It's my opinion that if you only watch a single provider (such as *only* Fox or *only* MSNBC) then you do not get the "real" news. Because, as was mentioned by Sandra above, "News organizations always slant what they present depending upon how they want the news to look." That isn't what I said in my first post, and Sandra seemed to miss my point, but that statement is nonetheless true in and of itself. Yes, both MSNBC and Fox provide slanted news, unfortunately. But in both cases it very much pays to look, research and compare with other news outlets to make sure your personal views aren't shortsighted, myopic and, in some rare cases, wrong.
Which leads me to my third point: because I *have* compared and contrasted the news organizations, it has lead me to believe that Fox has indeed been integral to many anti-government rallies and political movements. Take the 9/12 rally earlier this year for example. It was created by and instigated by Glenn Beck, one of Fox's most popular hosts. The "tea-party" rallies were heavily advertised on the Fox news channel and repeated as a part of their news reporting. Let me say that again; the tea-parties and the 9/12 rally were heavily *advertised* on Fox News in addition to being announced excessively and repeatedly on their news programs. No one paid Fox for these advertisements, Fox provided the air time themselves for these promos. Also the next round of Americans for Prosperity anti-health reform rallies will be headlined by FOX host John Stossel. And that is also being heavily advertised and promoted by Fox.
Now as I've said in my previous post, there is absolutely nothing wrong with any of the items I mentioned in this last paragraph. Fox is more than welcome and free to do these things if it wishes to. However, in my research I've not found any other news organization that has entered the political arena so heavily and thoroughly. Yes, some news organizations have had their announcers as speakers at rallies and similar events. But those speeches or political events were not heavily advertised on those networks. The events attended by the news announcers were privately done by that individual with little to no backing or promoting by the news organizations that they work for. Or, in other words the news organizations (with one exception) did not place itself into a position as a political institution. In the rare instance that one did, it was a singular occurrence and was not repeated or heavily promoted. Because of this difference I stand by my original opinion that Fox News, in addition to being a news organization, have also made themselves into a political organization and should of course then obviously be treated as such.
And so, yes I have been "checking it out for myself" as you say, "Registered Independent." The only difference between us, it would appear, is that I've not limited my research to only Fox News.
Secondly, yes, I watch MSNBC. But I also follow CNN, Fox, the Post, the Times, and a host of other news organizations. It's my opinion that if you only watch a single provider (such as *only* Fox or *only* MSNBC) then you do not get the "real" news. Because, as was mentioned by Sandra above, "News organizations always slant what they present depending upon how they want the news to look." That isn't what I said in my first post, and Sandra seemed to miss my point, but that statement is nonetheless true in and of itself. Yes, both MSNBC and Fox provide slanted news, unfortunately. But in both cases it very much pays to look, research and compare with other news outlets to make sure your personal views aren't shortsighted, myopic and, in some rare cases, wrong.
Which leads me to my third point: because I *have* compared and contrasted the news organizations, it has lead me to believe that Fox has indeed been integral to many anti-government rallies and political movements. Take the 9/12 rally earlier this year for example. It was created by and instigated by Glenn Beck, one of Fox's most popular hosts. The "tea-party" rallies were heavily advertised on the Fox news channel and repeated as a part of their news reporting. Let me say that again; the tea-parties and the 9/12 rally were heavily *advertised* on Fox News in addition to being announced excessively and repeatedly on their news programs. No one paid Fox for these advertisements, Fox provided the air time themselves for these promos. Also the next round of Americans for Prosperity anti-health reform rallies will be headlined by FOX host John Stossel. And that is also being heavily advertised and promoted by Fox.
Now as I've said in my previous post, there is absolutely nothing wrong with any of the items I mentioned in this last paragraph. Fox is more than welcome and free to do these things if it wishes to. However, in my research I've not found any other news organization that has entered the political arena so heavily and thoroughly. Yes, some news organizations have had their announcers as speakers at rallies and similar events. But those speeches or political events were not heavily advertised on those networks. The events attended by the news announcers were privately done by that individual with little to no backing or promoting by the news organizations that they work for. Or, in other words the news organizations (with one exception) did not place itself into a position as a political institution. In the rare instance that one did, it was a singular occurrence and was not repeated or heavily promoted. Because of this difference I stand by my original opinion that Fox News, in addition to being a news organization, have also made themselves into a political organization and should of course then obviously be treated as such.
And so, yes I have been "checking it out for myself" as you say, "Registered Independent." The only difference between us, it would appear, is that I've not limited my research to only Fox News.
jimmy
posted 10/29/09 @ 10:33 AM MST
FOX did not "advertise" the tea parties they covered them. When approximately 1,000,000 people march on Washington it might be credible for news agencies to at least mention what is going on. FOX and CNN are the only networks that covered the march.
Why would NBC not cover the anti-Obamacare protests? Perhaps because General Electric is the same company as NBC. Interesting? Who stands to get enormous government contracts to digitize and "revitalize" America's medical industry? GE? maybe?
So naturally NBC is not going to cover anything that could compromise their potential for government contracts if the health care bill passes. Everyone seems so concerned with FOX because of Beck, Hannity, and Cavuto. All three of these commentators describe their political beliefs up front. Hannity is a Reagan Republican and an extreme one at that, something he has not neglected to mention like 50 times during his program. Glenn Beck is a libertarian who dislikes government control of just about everything, something he does not hide. And Cavuto is a business conservative and dislikes any governmental meddling in the free-market. These three commentators are the biggest critics of Obama on FOX, but they clearly illustrate their reasoning and they do not hide their political ideology.
On the other hand a guy like Kieth Olbermann pretends to know everything, and does not say during his program ever that he is a progressive, transnational, liberal. He plays it off as if he is actually giving factual information that is free of ideology. It obviously is not, hence the lack of credibility and horrible ratings numbers.
You want real journalism and commentary, Bill O'Reilly and Greta Van Susteren are the most credible commentators and journalists in the business... period. The ratings prove it. Where are they FOX...
Note: That is not to say that people do not need more than one source for news. Thomas made a great point to check out CSPAN and PBS.
Why would NBC not cover the anti-Obamacare protests? Perhaps because General Electric is the same company as NBC. Interesting? Who stands to get enormous government contracts to digitize and "revitalize" America's medical industry? GE? maybe?
So naturally NBC is not going to cover anything that could compromise their potential for government contracts if the health care bill passes. Everyone seems so concerned with FOX because of Beck, Hannity, and Cavuto. All three of these commentators describe their political beliefs up front. Hannity is a Reagan Republican and an extreme one at that, something he has not neglected to mention like 50 times during his program. Glenn Beck is a libertarian who dislikes government control of just about everything, something he does not hide. And Cavuto is a business conservative and dislikes any governmental meddling in the free-market. These three commentators are the biggest critics of Obama on FOX, but they clearly illustrate their reasoning and they do not hide their political ideology.
On the other hand a guy like Kieth Olbermann pretends to know everything, and does not say during his program ever that he is a progressive, transnational, liberal. He plays it off as if he is actually giving factual information that is free of ideology. It obviously is not, hence the lack of credibility and horrible ratings numbers.
You want real journalism and commentary, Bill O'Reilly and Greta Van Susteren are the most credible commentators and journalists in the business... period. The ratings prove it. Where are they FOX...
Note: That is not to say that people do not need more than one source for news. Thomas made a great point to check out CSPAN and PBS.
Registered Independent
posted 10/29/09 @ 12:30 PM MST
Response to James:
Ummmm . . . no, as a matter of fact.
I watch Fox and CNN pretty equally, and only turn on MSNBC occasionally, for humorous contrast.
Sandra is exactly right that virtually all news channels "slant" the news. Except that no one was aware of this slanting going on, until about ten year ago when Fox news arrived on the scene. People had thought that the news they were hearing on CNN, CBS, NBC etc. was "neutral" up until then.
But when they began to see the contrast with Fox, they began to realize that the other channels had all been presenting a decidedly DNC-influenced point of view, all along, on these supposedly "neutral" news channels.
And here is the core of the problem: it is not that Barak Obama simply decided not to appear on Fox anymore. George Bush did that with MSNBC.
The problem is that David Axelrod, Rahm Emanuel and Barak Obama himself all came out and made public statements denigrating Fox. Stating that Fox had "a point of view." As if every other channel does not just as obviously have a point of view that they are promoting. And then this white house went even further.
The Obama administration ominously attempted to instruct the other news channel reporters and commentators to follow Obama's example, and not to make appearances on Fox, either. No discussion panels, etc. They also attempted to instruct reporters on the other channels not to pick up on the news stories that Fox has been breaking. Not to disseminate true news stories, if they were unflattering to this administration.
And that is a direct attempt by this executive branch to control the press. To control all of the press, not just Fox.
The Obama administration is attempting to control the "content" of the news that is reported about them. By all of the news media. They are not merely ignoring Fox.
As far as Fox's coverage of political rallies goes, you have got to be kidding. Most of the channels fawningly cover every single campaign rally that Obama and the DNC has ever held. And still, every time Obama speaks they are right there hanging on every word.
And yet because one party is now in office, you think that no coverage should be given to what the other party is up to, or their point of view? Well if the party that is out of power gets little or no news coverage, then we would turn into a one-party country pretty quickly, wouldn't we.
Fox covers literally all of Obama's press briefings and speeches. They just cover what the other side is doing as well; whereas most channels do not.
And believe it or not it is actually the job of the press to keep an eye on the guys in power. Here's a surprise: the press is supposed to be keeping just as close a watch on a Democratic administration as they do on a Republican administration. That's why the press gets special protection in the First Amendment to the Constitution. Not just to cheerlead Obama and spread David Axlerod's never-ending political propaganda beaming out from the white house.
The fact that the DNC has put their man in the white house does not mean that the press should now sit back, put their feet up and coast.
Just because the threat to democracy came from the right the last time (Nixon); doesn't mean that it won't come from the left the next time around.
This president stupidly established an "enemies list" very early on, just like Richard Nixon. Which means he needs to be watched. He also bizarrely picked a loud argument with a conservative talk-radio host who doesn't like him. And now he has not only tried to "freeze out" Fox, but he has attempted to get other news organizations to freeze out Fox's news stories, as well.
In short: this president is way too concerned with attempting to control what is said about him.
Not just to argue with what the opposition says; but to actually control what the opposition can say. His administration also issued a gag order against Humana Healthcare regarding this health care debate. An actual "prior restraint". Which Obama just lifted, only because the Supreme Court is now back in session, and they would have slapped him down.
Enemies lists, issuing prior restraints on free speech, and attempting to control the press are definitely not welcome characteristics in the most powerful man on the planet.
This guy isn't just running for president anymore; he is now the guy with all the power.
This is why Sally Quinn of the Washington Post made a point of appearing on Fox the very next day, and criticized the Obama administration for attempting to control the press.
I share the same opinion as Sally Quinn and Ben Bradlee on this First Amendment issue.
While you are in the company of Keith Olberman.
Ummmm . . . no, as a matter of fact.
I watch Fox and CNN pretty equally, and only turn on MSNBC occasionally, for humorous contrast.
Sandra is exactly right that virtually all news channels "slant" the news. Except that no one was aware of this slanting going on, until about ten year ago when Fox news arrived on the scene. People had thought that the news they were hearing on CNN, CBS, NBC etc. was "neutral" up until then.
But when they began to see the contrast with Fox, they began to realize that the other channels had all been presenting a decidedly DNC-influenced point of view, all along, on these supposedly "neutral" news channels.
And here is the core of the problem: it is not that Barak Obama simply decided not to appear on Fox anymore. George Bush did that with MSNBC.
The problem is that David Axelrod, Rahm Emanuel and Barak Obama himself all came out and made public statements denigrating Fox. Stating that Fox had "a point of view." As if every other channel does not just as obviously have a point of view that they are promoting. And then this white house went even further.
The Obama administration ominously attempted to instruct the other news channel reporters and commentators to follow Obama's example, and not to make appearances on Fox, either. No discussion panels, etc. They also attempted to instruct reporters on the other channels not to pick up on the news stories that Fox has been breaking. Not to disseminate true news stories, if they were unflattering to this administration.
And that is a direct attempt by this executive branch to control the press. To control all of the press, not just Fox.
The Obama administration is attempting to control the "content" of the news that is reported about them. By all of the news media. They are not merely ignoring Fox.
As far as Fox's coverage of political rallies goes, you have got to be kidding. Most of the channels fawningly cover every single campaign rally that Obama and the DNC has ever held. And still, every time Obama speaks they are right there hanging on every word.
And yet because one party is now in office, you think that no coverage should be given to what the other party is up to, or their point of view? Well if the party that is out of power gets little or no news coverage, then we would turn into a one-party country pretty quickly, wouldn't we.
Fox covers literally all of Obama's press briefings and speeches. They just cover what the other side is doing as well; whereas most channels do not.
And believe it or not it is actually the job of the press to keep an eye on the guys in power. Here's a surprise: the press is supposed to be keeping just as close a watch on a Democratic administration as they do on a Republican administration. That's why the press gets special protection in the First Amendment to the Constitution. Not just to cheerlead Obama and spread David Axlerod's never-ending political propaganda beaming out from the white house.
The fact that the DNC has put their man in the white house does not mean that the press should now sit back, put their feet up and coast.
Just because the threat to democracy came from the right the last time (Nixon); doesn't mean that it won't come from the left the next time around.
This president stupidly established an "enemies list" very early on, just like Richard Nixon. Which means he needs to be watched. He also bizarrely picked a loud argument with a conservative talk-radio host who doesn't like him. And now he has not only tried to "freeze out" Fox, but he has attempted to get other news organizations to freeze out Fox's news stories, as well.
In short: this president is way too concerned with attempting to control what is said about him.
Not just to argue with what the opposition says; but to actually control what the opposition can say. His administration also issued a gag order against Humana Healthcare regarding this health care debate. An actual "prior restraint". Which Obama just lifted, only because the Supreme Court is now back in session, and they would have slapped him down.
Enemies lists, issuing prior restraints on free speech, and attempting to control the press are definitely not welcome characteristics in the most powerful man on the planet.
This guy isn't just running for president anymore; he is now the guy with all the power.
This is why Sally Quinn of the Washington Post made a point of appearing on Fox the very next day, and criticized the Obama administration for attempting to control the press.
I share the same opinion as Sally Quinn and Ben Bradlee on this First Amendment issue.
While you are in the company of Keith Olberman.
Thomas Anderson
posted 10/30/09 @ 11:09 AM MST
Originally posted byRegistered Independent
Response to James:
Ummmm . . . no, as a matter of fact.
I watch Fox and CNN pretty equally, and only turn on MSNBC occasionally, for humorous contrast.
Sandra is exactly right that virtually all news channels "slant" the news. Except that no one was aware of this slanting going on, until about ten year ago when Fox news arrived on the scene. People had thought that the news they were hearing on CNN, CBS, NBC etc. was "neutral" up until then.
But when they began to see the contrast with Fox, they began to realize that the other channels had all been presenting a decidedly DNC-influenced point of view, all along, on these supposedly "neutral" news channels.
And here is the core of the problem: it is not that Barak Obama simply decided not to appear on Fox anymore. George Bush did that with MSNBC.
The problem is that David Axelrod, Rahm Emanuel and Barak Obama himself all came out and made public statements denigrating Fox. Stating that Fox had "a point of view." As if every other channel does not just as obviously have a point of view that they are promoting. And then this white house went even further.
The Obama administration ominously attempted to instruct the other news channel reporters and commentators to follow Obama's example, and not to make appearances on Fox, either. No discussion panels, etc. They also attempted to instruct reporters on the other channels not to pick up on the news stories that Fox has been breaking. Not to disseminate true news stories, if they were unflattering to this administration.
And that is a direct attempt by this executive branch to control the press. To control all of the press, not just Fox.
The Obama administration is attempting to control the "content" of the news that is reported about them. By all of the news media. They are not merely ignoring Fox.
As far as Fox's coverage of political rallies goes, you have got to be kidding. Most of the channels fawningly cover every single campaign rally that Obama and the DNC has ever held. And still, every time Obama speaks they are right there hanging on every word.
And yet because one party is now in office, you think that no coverage should be given to what the other party is up to, or their point of view? Well if the party that is out of power gets little or no news coverage, then we would turn into a one-party country pretty quickly, wouldn't we.
Fox covers literally all of Obama's press briefings and speeches. They just cover what the other side is doing as well; whereas most channels do not.
And believe it or not it is actually the job of the press to keep an eye on the guys in power. Here's a surprise: the press is supposed to be keeping just as close a watch on a Democratic administration as they do on a Republican administration. That's why the press gets special protection in the First Amendment to the Constitution. Not just to cheerlead Obama and spread David Axlerod's never-ending political propaganda beaming out from the white house.
The fact that the DNC has put their man in the white house does not mean that the press should now sit back, put their feet up and coast.
Just because the threat to democracy came from the right the last time (Nixon); doesn't mean that it won't come from the left the next time around.
This president stupidly established an "enemies list" very early on, just like Richard Nixon. Which means he needs to be watched. He also bizarrely picked a loud argument with a conservative talk-radio host who doesn't like him. And now he has not only tried to "freeze out" Fox, but he has attempted to get other news organizations to freeze out Fox's news stories, as well.
In short: this president is way too concerned with attempting to control what is said about him.
Not just to argue with what the opposition says; but to actually control what the opposition can say. His administration also issued a gag order against Humana Healthcare regarding this health care debate. An actual "prior restraint". Which Obama just lifted, only because the Supreme Court is now back in session, and they would have slapped him down.
Enemies lists, issuing prior restraints on free speech, and attempting to control the press are definitely not welcome characteristics in the most powerful man on the planet.
This guy isn't just running for president anymore; he is now the guy with all the power.
This is why Sally Quinn of the Washington Post made a point of appearing on Fox the very next day, and criticized the Obama administration for attempting to control the press.
I share the same opinion as Sally Quinn and Ben Bradlee on this First Amendment issue.
While you are in the company of Keith Olberman.
The press has no 'job' to be a watchdog. The media makes money off reporting what people want to know about. FOX makes money off reporting what Conservatives want to hear- bashing Obama, the Left, and boosting the Right and Tea-Parties. FOX also makes money by having barbie-esque blonde anchors with enormous breasts report the weather and on politics while fidgeting about the latest sex scandal... weird right?...so Conservative!
FOX is not news. CNN is not news. MSNBC is not news. They are entertainment. And the sooner you start treating them as such the sooner you will stop embarrassing yourself with such pointless talking-points.
And reg indy, what was up with the wife beating comment a while ago? Spell it out
James
posted 10/30/09 @ 9:48 AM MST
So, "Registered Independant," who is it exactly that you are arguing with here? It obviously isn't me because I've already stated at least twice that I agree that Fox News is a needed presence in our society. I disagree with some of it's tactics and the extreme methods it is taking, true. But every administration needs an opposite to keep it in check. Or, in other words, I agree with roughly half of what you said in your most recent rant. I am wondering if you are even reading what I've posted or are you just automatically and unthinkingly reacting negatively to anything that posits even a scintilla of a reaction that isn't exactly lined up with your rather opinionated view of the world?
I'm more than happy to intelligently discuss via this comment section of the Collegian the pros and cons of this subject, but if all I'm up against is just a mindless rant against what you don't agree with, then I don't see the point of continuing.
And, in addition, you once again missed my point and the reason I felt it necessary to bring it up in the first place. To reiterate; it is my belief that Fox News has made itself into a political organization in addition to a News organization. And as such is is a logical next step to treat such an institution as one would any political organization. It's pretty much that simple. You obviously disagree, of course, and you are more than welcome to. But it seems very clear to me that this is, unfortunately, the case.
Your many arguments about Obama's "controlling" the press is beside the singular point I was attempting to make. Personally I think Obama's actions against Fox are very stupid, arrogant and counterproductive, but I understand and agree with the reasoning behind it. As to if Obama is "controlling" the press? Please. That is an extreme overreaction to the reality of the situation. At the most, all that is occurring is the administration's spin against Fox News' spin. To call it a "war" or a "gag order" is just taking it way, way out of proportion.
Also, if it must be pointed out: I don't like Olberman much either. He used to be good a few years ago, but he's turned into just another extremist blathering ranter like Glenn Beck. If you must know, my personal opinion is that I don't dislike Fox News, I just dislike extremists. Most of Fox News reporting is fairly reasonable, if very slanted (MSNBC is about the same for the Left). But a few personalities such as Glenn Beck (and Olberman, for the record) are, in my opinion, extremists. Extreme views of any slant, be it Right, Left, Independent or whatever, are a bane to society. Extremists throw out the ability to talk rationally about a subject, they create divisions and cause hatred and spite and make the opposition into sub-human enemies that can only be despised. Nothing good can come from an extremist viewpoint. That's basically the reason I'm a centrist. Both the Right and the Left have moved away from the center, for the most part, and are devolving into extreme behavior. And that's the reason I speak up in forums such as this. Hopefully to bring a centrist view and maybe a little rationality back to the discussion.
I'm more than happy to intelligently discuss via this comment section of the Collegian the pros and cons of this subject, but if all I'm up against is just a mindless rant against what you don't agree with, then I don't see the point of continuing.
And, in addition, you once again missed my point and the reason I felt it necessary to bring it up in the first place. To reiterate; it is my belief that Fox News has made itself into a political organization in addition to a News organization. And as such is is a logical next step to treat such an institution as one would any political organization. It's pretty much that simple. You obviously disagree, of course, and you are more than welcome to. But it seems very clear to me that this is, unfortunately, the case.
Your many arguments about Obama's "controlling" the press is beside the singular point I was attempting to make. Personally I think Obama's actions against Fox are very stupid, arrogant and counterproductive, but I understand and agree with the reasoning behind it. As to if Obama is "controlling" the press? Please. That is an extreme overreaction to the reality of the situation. At the most, all that is occurring is the administration's spin against Fox News' spin. To call it a "war" or a "gag order" is just taking it way, way out of proportion.
Also, if it must be pointed out: I don't like Olberman much either. He used to be good a few years ago, but he's turned into just another extremist blathering ranter like Glenn Beck. If you must know, my personal opinion is that I don't dislike Fox News, I just dislike extremists. Most of Fox News reporting is fairly reasonable, if very slanted (MSNBC is about the same for the Left). But a few personalities such as Glenn Beck (and Olberman, for the record) are, in my opinion, extremists. Extreme views of any slant, be it Right, Left, Independent or whatever, are a bane to society. Extremists throw out the ability to talk rationally about a subject, they create divisions and cause hatred and spite and make the opposition into sub-human enemies that can only be despised. Nothing good can come from an extremist viewpoint. That's basically the reason I'm a centrist. Both the Right and the Left have moved away from the center, for the most part, and are devolving into extreme behavior. And that's the reason I speak up in forums such as this. Hopefully to bring a centrist view and maybe a little rationality back to the discussion.
Registered Independent
posted 10/31/09 @ 1:19 PM MST
I understood your argument perfectly, James.
Your argument is wrong.
There is no "middle ground" regarding Constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and freedom of the press.
You either support our First Amendment guarantees or you don't. There is no such thing as "a little too much free speech."
What you are expressing is the Venezuelan viewpoint; that certain quarters in the press are giving a little too much exposure to the opposition's position.
Your argument is wrong.
There is no "middle ground" regarding Constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and freedom of the press.
You either support our First Amendment guarantees or you don't. There is no such thing as "a little too much free speech."
What you are expressing is the Venezuelan viewpoint; that certain quarters in the press are giving a little too much exposure to the opposition's position.
Originally posted byJames
So, "Registered Independant," who is it exactly that you are arguing with here? It obviously isn't me because I've already stated at least twice that I agree that Fox News is a needed presence in our society. I disagree with some of it's tactics and the extreme methods it is taking, true. But every administration needs an opposite to keep it in check. Or, in other words, I agree with roughly half of what you said in your most recent rant. I am wondering if you are even reading what I've posted or are you just automatically and unthinkingly reacting negatively to anything that posits even a scintilla of a reaction that isn't exactly lined up with your rather opinionated view of the world?
I'm more than happy to intelligently discuss via this comment section of the Collegian the pros and cons of this subject, but if all I'm up against is just a mindless rant against what you don't agree with, then I don't see the point of continuing.
And, in addition, you once again missed my point and the reason I felt it necessary to bring it up in the first place. To reiterate; it is my belief that Fox News has made itself into a political organization in addition to a News organization. And as such is is a logical next step to treat such an institution as one would any political organization. It's pretty much that simple. You obviously disagree, of course, and you are more than welcome to. But it seems very clear to me that this is, unfortunately, the case.
Your many arguments about Obama's "controlling" the press is beside the singular point I was attempting to make. Personally I think Obama's actions against Fox are very stupid, arrogant and counterproductive, but I understand and agree with the reasoning behind it. As to if Obama is "controlling" the press? Please. That is an extreme overreaction to the reality of the situation. At the most, all that is occurring is the administration's spin against Fox News' spin. To call it a "war" or a "gag order" is just taking it way, way out of proportion.
Also, if it must be pointed out: I don't like Olberman much either. He used to be good a few years ago, but he's turned into just another extremist blathering ranter like Glenn Beck. If you must know, my personal opinion is that I don't dislike Fox News, I just dislike extremists. Most of Fox News reporting is fairly reasonable, if very slanted (MSNBC is about the same for the Left). But a few personalities such as Glenn Beck (and Olberman, for the record) are, in my opinion, extremists. Extreme views of any slant, be it Right, Left, Independent or whatever, are a bane to society. Extremists throw out the ability to talk rationally about a subject, they create divisions and cause hatred and spite and make the opposition into sub-human enemies that can only be despised. Nothing good can come from an extremist viewpoint. That's basically the reason I'm a centrist. Both the Right and the Left have moved away from the center, for the most part, and are devolving into extreme behavior. And that's the reason I speak up in forums such as this. Hopefully to bring a centrist view and maybe a little rationality back to the discussion.
Registered Independent
posted 10/31/09 @ 12:49 PM MST
Response to Thomas Anderson and James:
Wonder where you came up with the idea of "talking points", since Yours Truly is not in touch with any political party.
Barak Obama's growing animosity toward the First Amendment is the subject here.
The Washington Post has obviously identified Obama's problem with the press, and taken a symbolic stand.
So let's take a look at the big picture, because Barak Obama has a definite pattern of hostility going on, vis a vis the First Amendment.
The Obama administration issued an actual gag order against Humana Healthcare, not against Fox. (See, you misinterpret a lot when you skim.) This was actually a written gag order, to keep Humana from communicating with seniors about the cuts in services to them that this health care bill contains.
This gag order was a "prior restraint" and a clear violation of the First Amendment right to Free Speech.
The Obama administration is also attempting to use its bully pulpit, the power of the executive branch, to control stories about itself in the press. It is not particularly significant that Obama himself is freezing out Fox. He doesn't have to give them interviews. What is highly significant is that the head of the Executive branch attempted to give the rest of the press instructions not to follow up upon, or disseminate, true news stories which Fox investigated and broadcast. This is dancing right along the edge of the Executive branch attempting to actually control the press, in violation of the First Amendment.
Not to mention Barak Obama's dumb singling out of a radio talk show host in an attempt to chill his voice, but which of course only drove the man's ratings up. That one backfired.
Also quite telling, David Axlerod's office in the white house established an "enemies list" 4 or 5 months ago. This is also an attempt to control free speech, but of individuals rather than of the press. Using this list, the white house "spams" individuals who disagree with their policy positions, sending people "re-education" materials on the "right" way to think about Obama's policies. This has a chilling effect on many individual's First Amendment right to Free Speech, to think that what they say or write is being so closely monitored by people in power. (It doesn't chill my attitude, however, since I know the Constitution backwards and forwards. But it intimidates many. Which is exactly Axlerod's intention.)
President Obama clearly has a problem with the First Amendment. With speech or news stories that criticize him or his policies, or even anyone around him. He also has a problem with the press covering what the opposition party is doing or saying. He doesn't like hearing any opposing viewpoints, nor allowing us to hear them. Thus his attacks on Fox.
Unfortunately Obama doesn't just ignore such criticism as every other president has done. He tries to take action to stamp it out. This is why Barak Obama needs to be watched. Since it is his sworn duty to uphold the whole Constitution; most definitely including the First Amendment rights to free speech and freedom of the press.
I agree with Sally Quinn and Ben Bradlee that the only proper response to this Executive branch's repeated, naked attempts to control free speech and freedom of the press is is a loud and clear "when hell freezes over."
Now if you people still can't see the Constitutional problems inherent with Barak Obama's attitude toward the First Amendment, even after I have outlined it twice for you, then you are incurably myopic.
And Thomas, your focus upon newscasters physical attributes probably explains why actual issues go whizzing right past you.
Wonder where you came up with the idea of "talking points", since Yours Truly is not in touch with any political party.
Barak Obama's growing animosity toward the First Amendment is the subject here.
The Washington Post has obviously identified Obama's problem with the press, and taken a symbolic stand.
So let's take a look at the big picture, because Barak Obama has a definite pattern of hostility going on, vis a vis the First Amendment.
The Obama administration issued an actual gag order against Humana Healthcare, not against Fox. (See, you misinterpret a lot when you skim.) This was actually a written gag order, to keep Humana from communicating with seniors about the cuts in services to them that this health care bill contains.
This gag order was a "prior restraint" and a clear violation of the First Amendment right to Free Speech.
The Obama administration is also attempting to use its bully pulpit, the power of the executive branch, to control stories about itself in the press. It is not particularly significant that Obama himself is freezing out Fox. He doesn't have to give them interviews. What is highly significant is that the head of the Executive branch attempted to give the rest of the press instructions not to follow up upon, or disseminate, true news stories which Fox investigated and broadcast. This is dancing right along the edge of the Executive branch attempting to actually control the press, in violation of the First Amendment.
Not to mention Barak Obama's dumb singling out of a radio talk show host in an attempt to chill his voice, but which of course only drove the man's ratings up. That one backfired.
Also quite telling, David Axlerod's office in the white house established an "enemies list" 4 or 5 months ago. This is also an attempt to control free speech, but of individuals rather than of the press. Using this list, the white house "spams" individuals who disagree with their policy positions, sending people "re-education" materials on the "right" way to think about Obama's policies. This has a chilling effect on many individual's First Amendment right to Free Speech, to think that what they say or write is being so closely monitored by people in power. (It doesn't chill my attitude, however, since I know the Constitution backwards and forwards. But it intimidates many. Which is exactly Axlerod's intention.)
President Obama clearly has a problem with the First Amendment. With speech or news stories that criticize him or his policies, or even anyone around him. He also has a problem with the press covering what the opposition party is doing or saying. He doesn't like hearing any opposing viewpoints, nor allowing us to hear them. Thus his attacks on Fox.
Unfortunately Obama doesn't just ignore such criticism as every other president has done. He tries to take action to stamp it out. This is why Barak Obama needs to be watched. Since it is his sworn duty to uphold the whole Constitution; most definitely including the First Amendment rights to free speech and freedom of the press.
I agree with Sally Quinn and Ben Bradlee that the only proper response to this Executive branch's repeated, naked attempts to control free speech and freedom of the press is is a loud and clear "when hell freezes over."
Now if you people still can't see the Constitutional problems inherent with Barak Obama's attitude toward the First Amendment, even after I have outlined it twice for you, then you are incurably myopic.
And Thomas, your focus upon newscasters physical attributes probably explains why actual issues go whizzing right past you.
NOBAMA
posted 10/31/09 @ 9:08 PM MST
Obama was all show. He had the biggest Dem. convention and his big stage and speech. He had a built in ethnic group of hundreds of thousands of African-Americans who voted for him just because he was black. Not all, but yes a lot of them. He had many college age and young "hip" people voting for him just because he wasn't old and was flashier and better at speaking than John McCain. Now, when he is in position to back up all the things he promised, he has failed miserably and it is becoming very obvious. He is associated with so many shady people I can't even begin to count. His foreign policy has been his best area by far and that is basically because he just wants to make everyone happy. It looks good, just isn't really doing anything. His health care has been a nightmare and people are not standing for it. He is the biggest attention w***e I have ever seen. He spends more time doing commercials, talk shows, media ads you name it then any president ever. And he loves it. I mean we had a week worth of stories about his family getting a dog! Come on! If McCain was president, things would be better. That is almost too obvious. Plus, who could do worse than Obama right now? Oh, and Fox News is the only place you will hear it like it is.
Arvensis
posted 11/01/09 @ 10:55 PM MST
Originally posted byNOBAMA
Obama was all show. He had the biggest Dem. convention and his big stage and speech. He had a built in ethnic group of hundreds of thousands of African-Americans who voted for him just because he was black. Not all, but yes a lot of them. He had many college age and young "hip" people voting for him just because he wasn't old and was flashier and better at speaking than John McCain. Now, when he is in position to back up all the things he promised, he has failed miserably and it is becoming very obvious. He is associated with so many shady people I can't even begin to count. His foreign policy has been his best area by far and that is basically because he just wants to make everyone happy. It looks good, just isn't really doing anything. His health care has been a nightmare and people are not standing for it. He is the biggest attention w***e I have ever seen. He spends more time doing commercials, talk shows, media ads you name it then any president ever. And he loves it. I mean we had a week worth of stories about his family getting a dog! Come on! If McCain was president, things would be better. That is almost too obvious. Plus, who could do worse than Obama right now? Oh, and Fox News is the only place you will hear it like it is.
I completely agree with your take on Barry, but McCain would have not been any better. You have to stop thinking in the false 'left vs. right' paradigm. Our presidents serve as the front men for the true elite, which are the international bankers. As soon as the people start to realize this, their entire house of cards is going to come crashing down and we can restore constitutional America.
If you have not seen Alex Jone's new film: 'The Fall of the Republic', you must watch it. It is a great piece that breaks down the entire system. I will send anybody a free copy.
James
posted 11/02/09 @ 9:53 AM MST
Reg. Ind. says, "The Obama administration issued an actual gag order against Humana Healthcare"
The truth of this particular incident is that The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), which oversees the Medicare program for the elderly and disabled as well as privately-run Medicare Advantage options, ordered Humana to halt all related outreach until the agency concluded its investigation. This investigation is into letters sent to Medicare recipients that contained false and very misleading information concerning the pending healthcare legislation. The letters could be found to violate federal regulations. This is not a "gag order." It is a normal investigation into a company that could be in violation of the law. To read the actual letter sent to Humana, follow this link: http://finance.senate.gov/press/Bpress/2009press/prb092109a.pdf
As you can see, the first amendment does not enter into this particular incident as Humana is considered to be in possible violation of federal law. The actions taken against Humana are legal and appropriate. Any other response to this is just simple overreaction and fear-mongering.
As for the "enemies list," this is just media spin. It started as an ill-concieved project placed into action by the White House to help fight against the multiplying falsehoods and spin against healthcare reform. Things like the foolish "death camps" lies. On paper it was a reasonably good idea; try to clarify the facts from the spin. But in action it backfired because it was very easily twisted by the extreme Right wing into a "report-on-your-neighbor-to-the-fascist-dictator" idiocy. There is no "enemies list." Obama is not Nixon, he is a centrist and has obviously been desperately trying to govern from the center. All this was meant to be is simply a way to fight against the lies that are so rampant in regards to the health care debate. And again, any other response to this is just simple overreaction and fear-mongering.
As for Obama's "war" on Fox and Limbaugh? I'd agree it's dumb of the administration to single them out and react the way they have. As I said above: Personally I think Obama's actions against Fox are very stupid, arrogant and counterproductive, but I understand and agree with the reasoning behind it. But to consider a misguided but reasonable defense against lies directed at the White House as infringing upon the first amendment? Please. If the White House didn't defend itself against these lies, the extreme Right wing would then take that as proof that the lies were real and attack Obama even more. There is no way the administration can win, no matter what it does it will be viciously attacked with lies and spin that people seem to eat for breakfast because of the simple fact that Obama is a Democrat instead of a Republican. And all this comes from political aspirations of the extreme Right wing. The extremists are using these repulsive tactics to gain political power away from their opposition. It's as simple as that.
Obama and his administration is not perfect by any stretch of the imagination. There have been as many flaws, gaffs, mistakes and stupid actions in this administration as their has been in each administration before it. Obama has done quite a few things I personally very much disagree with. But to buy into the tin-foil-hat conspiracy about socialism, fascism, or whatever -ism is currently being used to attack the White House this week is foolish and extremely overreactive. This is spin created by the extremists and has no basis in reality except to show how far the extremists are willing to go to regain power. Any other response to this is just simple overreaction and fear-mongering.
The truth of this particular incident is that The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), which oversees the Medicare program for the elderly and disabled as well as privately-run Medicare Advantage options, ordered Humana to halt all related outreach until the agency concluded its investigation. This investigation is into letters sent to Medicare recipients that contained false and very misleading information concerning the pending healthcare legislation. The letters could be found to violate federal regulations. This is not a "gag order." It is a normal investigation into a company that could be in violation of the law. To read the actual letter sent to Humana, follow this link: http://finance.senate.gov/press/Bpress/2009press/prb092109a.pdf
As you can see, the first amendment does not enter into this particular incident as Humana is considered to be in possible violation of federal law. The actions taken against Humana are legal and appropriate. Any other response to this is just simple overreaction and fear-mongering.
As for the "enemies list," this is just media spin. It started as an ill-concieved project placed into action by the White House to help fight against the multiplying falsehoods and spin against healthcare reform. Things like the foolish "death camps" lies. On paper it was a reasonably good idea; try to clarify the facts from the spin. But in action it backfired because it was very easily twisted by the extreme Right wing into a "report-on-your-neighbor-to-the-fascist-dictator" idiocy. There is no "enemies list." Obama is not Nixon, he is a centrist and has obviously been desperately trying to govern from the center. All this was meant to be is simply a way to fight against the lies that are so rampant in regards to the health care debate. And again, any other response to this is just simple overreaction and fear-mongering.
As for Obama's "war" on Fox and Limbaugh? I'd agree it's dumb of the administration to single them out and react the way they have. As I said above: Personally I think Obama's actions against Fox are very stupid, arrogant and counterproductive, but I understand and agree with the reasoning behind it. But to consider a misguided but reasonable defense against lies directed at the White House as infringing upon the first amendment? Please. If the White House didn't defend itself against these lies, the extreme Right wing would then take that as proof that the lies were real and attack Obama even more. There is no way the administration can win, no matter what it does it will be viciously attacked with lies and spin that people seem to eat for breakfast because of the simple fact that Obama is a Democrat instead of a Republican. And all this comes from political aspirations of the extreme Right wing. The extremists are using these repulsive tactics to gain political power away from their opposition. It's as simple as that.
Obama and his administration is not perfect by any stretch of the imagination. There have been as many flaws, gaffs, mistakes and stupid actions in this administration as their has been in each administration before it. Obama has done quite a few things I personally very much disagree with. But to buy into the tin-foil-hat conspiracy about socialism, fascism, or whatever -ism is currently being used to attack the White House this week is foolish and extremely overreactive. This is spin created by the extremists and has no basis in reality except to show how far the extremists are willing to go to regain power. Any other response to this is just simple overreaction and fear-mongering.
Arvensis
posted 11/02/09 @ 6:39 PM MST
James:
It is sad that you are so blind to what is going on in the United States. Why can you not see that our country is under attack and we are losing the foundation it was built on? Have you ever read the founders documents? How can you ignore the huge hits the government has delivered to the people? Bailouts, TARP, stimulus, hate crimes bill, prolonged detention, etc. Bush doubled the government, which was terrible, and here is Barry continuing the same damned agenda, but fools wearing political hats haven't figured it out yet. Go read the declaration of independence and the constitution. This country was created because tyranny is not freedom.
Socialism: a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
Fascism: 1: a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control.
A Republic: 1: An autonomous or partially autonomous political and territorial unit belonging to a sovereign federation. 2: A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them. 3: A political order whose head of state is not a monarch.
We live in a republic, where the law rules above the government. There is vertical separation between the source of power and the administrators of the power. Do you understand that an overpowering oligarchy of liars, cheaters, thieves, and killers are systematically carrying us into a fascist state? The government has nothing to give. The only way they can give something is by taking it from somebody else. Let it sink in...
It is sad that you are so blind to what is going on in the United States. Why can you not see that our country is under attack and we are losing the foundation it was built on? Have you ever read the founders documents? How can you ignore the huge hits the government has delivered to the people? Bailouts, TARP, stimulus, hate crimes bill, prolonged detention, etc. Bush doubled the government, which was terrible, and here is Barry continuing the same damned agenda, but fools wearing political hats haven't figured it out yet. Go read the declaration of independence and the constitution. This country was created because tyranny is not freedom.
Socialism: a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
Fascism: 1: a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control.
A Republic: 1: An autonomous or partially autonomous political and territorial unit belonging to a sovereign federation. 2: A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them. 3: A political order whose head of state is not a monarch.
We live in a republic, where the law rules above the government. There is vertical separation between the source of power and the administrators of the power. Do you understand that an overpowering oligarchy of liars, cheaters, thieves, and killers are systematically carrying us into a fascist state? The government has nothing to give. The only way they can give something is by taking it from somebody else. Let it sink in...
Registered Independent, J.D.
posted 11/02/09 @ 7:28 PM MST
Complete malarkey from you again, James.
You are way out of your depth on First Amendment issues, that's clear. You haven't even a passing familiarity with the First Amendment.
Where did you get your posting responses, off of the white house propaganda web site?
I happen to be on this white house "enemies list", so I know precisely what I am talking about on this issue.
You said the list was a reaction to "multiplying falsehoods and spin"??? That is complete nonsense propaganda, made up by David Axlerod. They put anyone on this list who disagrees with anything about this administration or it's policies.
In my particular situation, I happened to have pointed out what a moron Nancy Pelosi is regarding the First Amendment. Not even a criticism of the Obama administration.
Here is exactly how I happened to end up on Obama's enemies list:
Last summer, we all saw the Townhall protesters on TV, arguing with their Congressmen about this health care bill. Out of the blue, Nancy Pelosi opens her idiot mouth and announces in that bug-eyed way of hers, that the Town Hall protesters are "UnAmerican". She said that in a public statement before the cameras. (Obviously this Speaker of the House is just as unfamiliar with the First Amendment as you are. Foreign territory for both of you, isn't it James.)
Anyway, Pelosi made her moronic public statement about the Town Hall protesters free speech being "UnAmerican." In reaction to that, I e-mailed Pelosi's office and stated that she needed to familiarize herself with the First Amendment. Being as how she is the Speaker of the House and all, she ought to have some grasp of the Bill of Rights, at least.
I did not receive any response from Pelosi's office. But she sent my e-mail address to the white house, and they put me on their "enemies list". (I have never e-mailed the white house.)
Within 24 hours of my e-mail to Pelosi, I began receiving "re-education" spam from David Axlerod's office at the white house. The content of this spam is pure party line propaganda, largely about this health care bill. They did not respond to my statement that Pelosi ought to familiarize herself with the basics of the First Amendment. What they send out is pre-packaged, canned propaganda.
Luckily I know how to "bounce" this e-mail spam directly back to the white house server, unopened.
The "Enemies List" is real, alright. And one reporter has already filed a Freedom Of Information Act Request to find out who's bright idea it was; and whether Barak Obama himself okayed it. Which he undoubtedly did. The white house is dragging their feet on that Freedom of Information Act request. But they will have to cough it up eventually.
Now on to deal with your second, remarkably uneducated stab at interpreting the First Amendment: the Obama administration's gag order against Humana Healthcare.
First of all, there is NO EXCEPTION to the right to First Amendment free speech, for speech that one political party attempts to characterize as "false and misleading." The entire POINT of the First Amendment is for the PUBLIC to hear ALL SIDES of an argument; and then decide for themselves what is true, and what is false or misleading.
Secondly, the fact of the matter is that Humana was telling the exact truth to seniors. $500 billion is going to be taken from Medicare, to pay for this health care bill now before Congress. Obama/Pelosi want to be able to take $500 billion from Medicare; and yet not receive any "blowback" from seniors at the midterm elections in 2010. Seniors vote in larger percentages than any other demographic group.
Humana disrupted that Obama/Pelosi plan.
Why the heck do you think that most of those people at the Town Hall meetings are at least middle-aged, and mostly gray haired? They know exactly what is up with this health care bill.
The white house CANNOT issue such such prior restraints against free speech. That's a direct violation of the First Amendment. The administration's excuse of "Defending itself" is NO exception to that First Amendment prohibition. That's not a legal argument: it's irrelevant, excuse-making crap designed to fool only laymen such as yourself. Lawyers are laughing their heads off.
And Humana Healthcare is being "investigated", my fanny. The Center for Medicaid and Medicare doesn't have the power to "investigate" squat regarding First Amendment free speech. They will run smack into the Supreme Court before they get anywhere with that.
And as I previously stated, the Obama administration recently lifted their prior restraint on Humana, as soon as the Supreme Court went back into its new session in October. Because no one on the Supreme Court is going to fall for this lame, propaganda crap that you swallow whole.
And the Obama administration would have been publicly exposed for the lying propagandists that they are.
I usually try not to get into legal arguments with laymen. However, you are one of those unusually arrogant types who likes to give himself airs, as if he actually had some idea what he was talking about regarding the Constitution.
People like you, James, are the reason that it's a felony to practice law without a license. You wouldn't recognize a First Amendment issue if it smacked you in the teeth.
And you are the biggest sucker for lefty political propaganda that I have ever seen. Even when it blatantly conflicts with the plain language in the Constitution; you buy it anyway. The perfect patsy.
I have a Juris Doctor Degree. And a license to practice law. (Good luck ever getting either of those.) Knowing the Constitution well is an entry requirement for my profession. We spend a year studying that little document, and the Supreme Court cases interpreting it. And the Constitution and Supreme Court happen to be areas of particular interest to me. So I spend a lot of time studying it still.
You are the guy actually standing there in a tin foil hat, who has not a clue on earth about the subject matter he pretends to discuss. That's why you are such a sucker for made-up nonsense excuses the Obama administration comes up with, such as "misleading speech." That phrase wouldn't fool a paralegal, James.
Constitutional law is not a matter of uneducated "opinion". It is a matter of law. Period. And you certainly don't know the first thing about the law on the subject.
Barak Obama has been in office for 10 months, and he is constantly expressing animosity towards free speech from both the press and the public, unlike any other president before him.
And Obama has already stepped over the Constitutional line once, with his prior restraint on Humana Healthcare's right to Free Speech. Backing down just in the nick of time to save his skinny behind from exposure and censure by the Supreme Court.
Keep an eye on this bogus "misleading speech" label this administration is fond of tossing around. "Misleading" speech is a legally irrelevant propaganda label; it entitles this administration to ban absolutely NOTHING in the free speech arena.
All it means is that somebody in the press or some segment of the population, is saying something that this Obama administration wishes very, very desperately for the public not to hear.
Barak Obama and his entire administration
You are way out of your depth on First Amendment issues, that's clear. You haven't even a passing familiarity with the First Amendment.
Where did you get your posting responses, off of the white house propaganda web site?
I happen to be on this white house "enemies list", so I know precisely what I am talking about on this issue.
You said the list was a reaction to "multiplying falsehoods and spin"??? That is complete nonsense propaganda, made up by David Axlerod. They put anyone on this list who disagrees with anything about this administration or it's policies.
In my particular situation, I happened to have pointed out what a moron Nancy Pelosi is regarding the First Amendment. Not even a criticism of the Obama administration.
Here is exactly how I happened to end up on Obama's enemies list:
Last summer, we all saw the Townhall protesters on TV, arguing with their Congressmen about this health care bill. Out of the blue, Nancy Pelosi opens her idiot mouth and announces in that bug-eyed way of hers, that the Town Hall protesters are "UnAmerican". She said that in a public statement before the cameras. (Obviously this Speaker of the House is just as unfamiliar with the First Amendment as you are. Foreign territory for both of you, isn't it James.)
Anyway, Pelosi made her moronic public statement about the Town Hall protesters free speech being "UnAmerican." In reaction to that, I e-mailed Pelosi's office and stated that she needed to familiarize herself with the First Amendment. Being as how she is the Speaker of the House and all, she ought to have some grasp of the Bill of Rights, at least.
I did not receive any response from Pelosi's office. But she sent my e-mail address to the white house, and they put me on their "enemies list". (I have never e-mailed the white house.)
Within 24 hours of my e-mail to Pelosi, I began receiving "re-education" spam from David Axlerod's office at the white house. The content of this spam is pure party line propaganda, largely about this health care bill. They did not respond to my statement that Pelosi ought to familiarize herself with the basics of the First Amendment. What they send out is pre-packaged, canned propaganda.
Luckily I know how to "bounce" this e-mail spam directly back to the white house server, unopened.
The "Enemies List" is real, alright. And one reporter has already filed a Freedom Of Information Act Request to find out who's bright idea it was; and whether Barak Obama himself okayed it. Which he undoubtedly did. The white house is dragging their feet on that Freedom of Information Act request. But they will have to cough it up eventually.
Now on to deal with your second, remarkably uneducated stab at interpreting the First Amendment: the Obama administration's gag order against Humana Healthcare.
First of all, there is NO EXCEPTION to the right to First Amendment free speech, for speech that one political party attempts to characterize as "false and misleading." The entire POINT of the First Amendment is for the PUBLIC to hear ALL SIDES of an argument; and then decide for themselves what is true, and what is false or misleading.
Secondly, the fact of the matter is that Humana was telling the exact truth to seniors. $500 billion is going to be taken from Medicare, to pay for this health care bill now before Congress. Obama/Pelosi want to be able to take $500 billion from Medicare; and yet not receive any "blowback" from seniors at the midterm elections in 2010. Seniors vote in larger percentages than any other demographic group.
Humana disrupted that Obama/Pelosi plan.
Why the heck do you think that most of those people at the Town Hall meetings are at least middle-aged, and mostly gray haired? They know exactly what is up with this health care bill.
The white house CANNOT issue such such prior restraints against free speech. That's a direct violation of the First Amendment. The administration's excuse of "Defending itself" is NO exception to that First Amendment prohibition. That's not a legal argument: it's irrelevant, excuse-making crap designed to fool only laymen such as yourself. Lawyers are laughing their heads off.
And Humana Healthcare is being "investigated", my fanny. The Center for Medicaid and Medicare doesn't have the power to "investigate" squat regarding First Amendment free speech. They will run smack into the Supreme Court before they get anywhere with that.
And as I previously stated, the Obama administration recently lifted their prior restraint on Humana, as soon as the Supreme Court went back into its new session in October. Because no one on the Supreme Court is going to fall for this lame, propaganda crap that you swallow whole.
And the Obama administration would have been publicly exposed for the lying propagandists that they are.
I usually try not to get into legal arguments with laymen. However, you are one of those unusually arrogant types who likes to give himself airs, as if he actually had some idea what he was talking about regarding the Constitution.
People like you, James, are the reason that it's a felony to practice law without a license. You wouldn't recognize a First Amendment issue if it smacked you in the teeth.
And you are the biggest sucker for lefty political propaganda that I have ever seen. Even when it blatantly conflicts with the plain language in the Constitution; you buy it anyway. The perfect patsy.
I have a Juris Doctor Degree. And a license to practice law. (Good luck ever getting either of those.) Knowing the Constitution well is an entry requirement for my profession. We spend a year studying that little document, and the Supreme Court cases interpreting it. And the Constitution and Supreme Court happen to be areas of particular interest to me. So I spend a lot of time studying it still.
You are the guy actually standing there in a tin foil hat, who has not a clue on earth about the subject matter he pretends to discuss. That's why you are such a sucker for made-up nonsense excuses the Obama administration comes up with, such as "misleading speech." That phrase wouldn't fool a paralegal, James.
Constitutional law is not a matter of uneducated "opinion". It is a matter of law. Period. And you certainly don't know the first thing about the law on the subject.
Barak Obama has been in office for 10 months, and he is constantly expressing animosity towards free speech from both the press and the public, unlike any other president before him.
And Obama has already stepped over the Constitutional line once, with his prior restraint on Humana Healthcare's right to Free Speech. Backing down just in the nick of time to save his skinny behind from exposure and censure by the Supreme Court.
Keep an eye on this bogus "misleading speech" label this administration is fond of tossing around. "Misleading" speech is a legally irrelevant propaganda label; it entitles this administration to ban absolutely NOTHING in the free speech arena.
All it means is that somebody in the press or some segment of the population, is saying something that this Obama administration wishes very, very desperately for the public not to hear.
Barak Obama and his entire administration
James
posted 11/03/09 @ 10:07 AM MST
Hmm...
I think, after your last post, Reg. Ind., that I begin to see where you are coming from. It is the same place that the Leftist block came from who said Bush was part of the 9/11 conspiracy. Or, in other words, you are a loon and not worth discussing this with anymore. If you believe that means you've "won" the argument, so be it. Personally, I just think you have only proven to me by your extremist philosophy that your arguments hold no water whatsoever. Extremism of any flavor has always been counterproductive, false and hurtful to everyone around. And so this will be my last reply to this thread. I've said my piece and you can take it or leave it as you wish.
As for your comments, Arvensis: I do not hold as high an opinion of government as you seem to believe I do. Anyone who had their eyes open during the Bush administration should be wary of government in general. Yes, I agree that there are huge problems with the government, most of which were created and/or continued in the last 10 years or so. And (getting back to the original post) the media helped propagate a great deal of these problems: the Iraq war for example. These quagmires need to be fixed and repealed.
But they need to be fixed with intelligence, a level head and without the extremist idea that *all* government is bad or that too much government is good. To quote an old phrase, let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Yes, lets fix what is wrong with our country. But let's not go overboard removing all government programs in that we remove the few things that are actually working. Or to fight against additional programs that will be truly beneficial. On the other side, let's not regulate people into submission with useless over-controlling government rules and programs that reduce people's freedom to live a normal life. Both too little and too much government is counter-productive to the country. And if our leaders buy wholesale into either the Left or Right wing extremists' thoughts it will eventually cause our country to become extreme in it's day-to-day practices and thus become exactly what it is you are fearing: a socialist or fascist state. Neither of those political philosophies can come into being from a centrist position. They are only brought into play from the extreme factions of government.
Basically, what I'm saying is to not fall prey to the rampant and ever-prominent extremist ideas that are taking hold of our entire public discourse in this country, propagated by the media's screaming heads. Instead, let's talk rationally and intelligently about what is and is not working, and fix it. Ignore the extremists and their lies and focus on the rational and the civil administration of government.
Now, I harbor no illusion that my suggestion will ever happen, of course. Not when the media feeds so much on extremism as it's lifeblood. But it is possible that if enough people start putting their foot down and saying they won't tolerate extremism from their representatives, we might eventually make it possible to have at least a little more civil political discussion than we do now.
I think, after your last post, Reg. Ind., that I begin to see where you are coming from. It is the same place that the Leftist block came from who said Bush was part of the 9/11 conspiracy. Or, in other words, you are a loon and not worth discussing this with anymore. If you believe that means you've "won" the argument, so be it. Personally, I just think you have only proven to me by your extremist philosophy that your arguments hold no water whatsoever. Extremism of any flavor has always been counterproductive, false and hurtful to everyone around. And so this will be my last reply to this thread. I've said my piece and you can take it or leave it as you wish.
As for your comments, Arvensis: I do not hold as high an opinion of government as you seem to believe I do. Anyone who had their eyes open during the Bush administration should be wary of government in general. Yes, I agree that there are huge problems with the government, most of which were created and/or continued in the last 10 years or so. And (getting back to the original post) the media helped propagate a great deal of these problems: the Iraq war for example. These quagmires need to be fixed and repealed.
But they need to be fixed with intelligence, a level head and without the extremist idea that *all* government is bad or that too much government is good. To quote an old phrase, let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Yes, lets fix what is wrong with our country. But let's not go overboard removing all government programs in that we remove the few things that are actually working. Or to fight against additional programs that will be truly beneficial. On the other side, let's not regulate people into submission with useless over-controlling government rules and programs that reduce people's freedom to live a normal life. Both too little and too much government is counter-productive to the country. And if our leaders buy wholesale into either the Left or Right wing extremists' thoughts it will eventually cause our country to become extreme in it's day-to-day practices and thus become exactly what it is you are fearing: a socialist or fascist state. Neither of those political philosophies can come into being from a centrist position. They are only brought into play from the extreme factions of government.
Basically, what I'm saying is to not fall prey to the rampant and ever-prominent extremist ideas that are taking hold of our entire public discourse in this country, propagated by the media's screaming heads. Instead, let's talk rationally and intelligently about what is and is not working, and fix it. Ignore the extremists and their lies and focus on the rational and the civil administration of government.
Now, I harbor no illusion that my suggestion will ever happen, of course. Not when the media feeds so much on extremism as it's lifeblood. But it is possible that if enough people start putting their foot down and saying they won't tolerate extremism from their representatives, we might eventually make it possible to have at least a little more civil political discussion than we do now.
jimmy
posted 11/04/09 @ 7:00 AM MST
Originally posted byJames
Hmm...
I think, after your last post, Reg. Ind., that I begin to see where you are coming from. It is the same place that the Leftist block came from who said Bush was part of the 9/11 conspiracy. Or, in other words, you are a loon and not worth discussing this with anymore. If you believe that means you've "won" the argument, so be it. Personally, I just think you have only proven to me by your extremist philosophy that your arguments hold no water whatsoever. Extremism of any flavor has always been counterproductive, false and hurtful to everyone around. And so this will be my last reply to this thread. I've said my piece and you can take it or leave it as you wish.
As for your comments, Arvensis: I do not hold as high an opinion of government as you seem to believe I do. Anyone who had their eyes open during the Bush administration should be wary of government in general. Yes, I agree that there are huge problems with the government, most of which were created and/or continued in the last 10 years or so. And (getting back to the original post) the media helped propagate a great deal of these problems: the Iraq war for example. These quagmires need to be fixed and repealed.
But they need to be fixed with intelligence, a level head and without the extremist idea that *all* government is bad or that too much government is good. To quote an old phrase, let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Yes, lets fix what is wrong with our country. But let's not go overboard removing all government programs in that we remove the few things that are actually working. Or to fight against additional programs that will be truly beneficial. On the other side, let's not regulate people into submission with useless over-controlling government rules and programs that reduce people's freedom to live a normal life. Both too little and too much government is counter-productive to the country. And if our leaders buy wholesale into either the Left or Right wing extremists' thoughts it will eventually cause our country to become extreme in it's day-to-day practices and thus become exactly what it is you are fearing: a socialist or fascist state. Neither of those political philosophies can come into being from a centrist position. They are only brought into play from the extreme factions of government.
Basically, what I'm saying is to not fall prey to the rampant and ever-prominent extremist ideas that are taking hold of our entire public discourse in this country, propagated by the media's screaming heads. Instead, let's talk rationally and intelligently about what is and is not working, and fix it. Ignore the extremists and their lies and focus on the rational and the civil administration of government.
Now, I harbor no illusion that my suggestion will ever happen, of course. Not when the media feeds so much on extremism as it's lifeblood. But it is possible that if enough people start putting their foot down and saying they won't tolerate extremism from their representatives, we might eventually make it possible to have at least a little more civil political discussion than we do now.
Arrogance what? Bloviate all you want James, but that does not change the fact that you have contradicted yourself numerous times in your recent posts. It is clear you have no clue what you are talking about... The only thing worst than extremism is mediocrity, something you obviously espouse. By the way who made you the judge of what is "extreme" and what isn't? More evidence of blatant arrogance on your part.
Registered Independent
posted 11/03/09 @ 6:53 PM MST
Response to James:
The loon you see is in the mirror, James.
That your mind is entirely untrained, is clear.
Faced with first-hand facts about Obama's enemies list, that conflict with the the blanket white house "excuse statement" on that issue: you believe their propaganda statement, unquestioningly.
As if anyone could have dreamed up the astonishment of receiving "re-education" spam from the white house.
Far from being a "centrist", you are an Obama-worshipper of the first rank; who refuses to accept the mounting evidence that this man and his entire administration bear animosity towards the First Amendment. Like no other president before him.
And stop pretending that you comprehend the First Amendment: you have no understanding of its importance whatsoever. You're an analytical bumpkin, hopelessly lost in the maze.
Which results in you being in the political company of Keith Olberman, a career sportscaster.
While I am in the company of The Washington Post.
The loon you see is in the mirror, James.
That your mind is entirely untrained, is clear.
Faced with first-hand facts about Obama's enemies list, that conflict with the the blanket white house "excuse statement" on that issue: you believe their propaganda statement, unquestioningly.
As if anyone could have dreamed up the astonishment of receiving "re-education" spam from the white house.
Far from being a "centrist", you are an Obama-worshipper of the first rank; who refuses to accept the mounting evidence that this man and his entire administration bear animosity towards the First Amendment. Like no other president before him.
And stop pretending that you comprehend the First Amendment: you have no understanding of its importance whatsoever. You're an analytical bumpkin, hopelessly lost in the maze.
Which results in you being in the political company of Keith Olberman, a career sportscaster.
While I am in the company of The Washington Post.
Craig Hawley
posted 11/05/09 @ 2:55 AM MST
Obama's trashing of Fox , the Chamber of Commerce and any one else that dares to oppose their Obamessiah is hurting Obama and the Dems not Fox News or the Chamber.
Just look at the stats to see that it is helping them both.
So the strategy is failed , as are his policies and diplomacy.
Stimulus was supposed to come with a Guaranteed 8% cap on unemployment according to the Messiah.
Well 9.8% and rising so he lied or was incompetent with that policy or both.
Also now the chair of his economic panel just said the stimulus has had it's impact and it was a failure...
Obama's death care will simply give us a rationed health care system that will sacrifice the elderly to pay for the care of the younger recipients.
One small flaw in that plan. Baby boomers are retiring and will be for about three decades. They will own the political landscape for those decades and Obama has pretty much crapped in their faces.
And finally after seeing Virginia and then the big one NJ go Republican it is clear that the dems or LIGGYS as I call them are going to be in real trouble in 2010 and 2012.
Obama is a racist , elitist , terrorist loving , anti American socialist.
I took an oath to get into the military to defend the CONSTITUTION of the United States from all enemies both foreign and domestic.
And no one can doubt after Obama's comments about how deeply flawed our constitution he is an enemy of that document.
He wants to change it 180 degrees from what it is and what the framers wanted it to be.
He has got to go and the sooner the better.
Just look at the stats to see that it is helping them both.
So the strategy is failed , as are his policies and diplomacy.
Stimulus was supposed to come with a Guaranteed 8% cap on unemployment according to the Messiah.
Well 9.8% and rising so he lied or was incompetent with that policy or both.
Also now the chair of his economic panel just said the stimulus has had it's impact and it was a failure...
Obama's death care will simply give us a rationed health care system that will sacrifice the elderly to pay for the care of the younger recipients.
One small flaw in that plan. Baby boomers are retiring and will be for about three decades. They will own the political landscape for those decades and Obama has pretty much crapped in their faces.
And finally after seeing Virginia and then the big one NJ go Republican it is clear that the dems or LIGGYS as I call them are going to be in real trouble in 2010 and 2012.
Obama is a racist , elitist , terrorist loving , anti American socialist.
I took an oath to get into the military to defend the CONSTITUTION of the United States from all enemies both foreign and domestic.
And no one can doubt after Obama's comments about how deeply flawed our constitution he is an enemy of that document.
He wants to change it 180 degrees from what it is and what the framers wanted it to be.
He has got to go and the sooner the better.
Registered Independent
posted 11/08/09 @ 5:43 PM MST
Response to Mr Hawley:
Thank you for your service to our country. I can't remember if I ever said that before. Veterans are not told how much they are appreciated, nearly often enough. Considering that you few actually volunteered to risk your necks for the rest of us. The vast majority of people are all just blustering talk, and no action, about loving this country.
I did not mean to imply earlier, that only lawyers understand Constitutional or First Amendment issues. There are millions of people like you, who comprehend the Bill of Rights quite clearly. And its importance.
James here, and Nancy Pelosi, are just not among them.
My hat is off to the few and the brave among us, such as you. Always.
Reg Indy
Thank you for your service to our country. I can't remember if I ever said that before. Veterans are not told how much they are appreciated, nearly often enough. Considering that you few actually volunteered to risk your necks for the rest of us. The vast majority of people are all just blustering talk, and no action, about loving this country.
I did not mean to imply earlier, that only lawyers understand Constitutional or First Amendment issues. There are millions of people like you, who comprehend the Bill of Rights quite clearly. And its importance.
James here, and Nancy Pelosi, are just not among them.
My hat is off to the few and the brave among us, such as you. Always.
Reg Indy
Originally posted byCraig Hawley
Obama's trashing of Fox , the Chamber of Commerce and any one else that dares to oppose their Obamessiah is hurting Obama and the Dems not Fox News or the Chamber.
Just look at the stats to see that it is helping them both.
So the strategy is failed , as are his policies and diplomacy.
Stimulus was supposed to come with a Guaranteed 8% cap on unemployment according to the Messiah.
Well 9.8% and rising so he lied or was incompetent with that policy or both.
Also now the chair of his economic panel just said the stimulus has had it's impact and it was a failure...
Obama's death care will simply give us a rationed health care system that will sacrifice the elderly to pay for the care of the younger recipients.
One small flaw in that plan. Baby boomers are retiring and will be for about three decades. They will own the political landscape for those decades and Obama has pretty much crapped in their faces.
And finally after seeing Virginia and then the big one NJ go Republican it is clear that the dems or LIGGYS as I call them are going to be in real trouble in 2010 and 2012.
Obama is a racist , elitist , terrorist loving , anti American socialist.
I took an oath to get into the military to defend the CONSTITUTION of the United States from all enemies both foreign and domestic.
And no one can doubt after Obama's comments about how deeply flawed our constitution he is an enemy of that document.
He wants to change it 180 degrees from what it is and what the framers wanted it to be.
He has got to go and the sooner the better.
Registered Independent
posted 11/06/09 @ 1:21 PM MST
RASMUSSEN DAILY PRESIDENTIAL TRACKING POLL, 11/6/09
Overall, fifty-one percent (51%) of voters somewhat disapprove of Obama's performance. And 37% of these voters Strongly Disapprove.
Forty-nine percent (49%) of voters somewhat approve of Obama's performance. Only 29% of this group Strongly Approve.
Overall, fifty-one percent (51%) of voters somewhat disapprove of Obama's performance. And 37% of these voters Strongly Disapprove.
Forty-nine percent (49%) of voters somewhat approve of Obama's performance. Only 29% of this group Strongly Approve.
john649
posted 11/07/09 @ 1:03 PM MST
I think your article will a primer for the republican party politics. You written nothing new here. One could take your anti-Obama rhetoric and post it on a FOX NEWS page any where and it would blend in to the SAME rhetoric they write themselves so whats yor point?? You like Fox News and hate the liberals. So what?? why do we care?
Have a happy republican life having tantrums and writing how much you HATE the liberals, you've learned the SAME tactics well......yawn.
Have a happy republican life having tantrums and writing how much you HATE the liberals, you've learned the SAME tactics well......yawn.
Zach
posted 11/07/09 @ 6:52 PM MST
Originally posted byjohn649
I think your article will a primer for the republican party politics. You written nothing new here. One could take your anti-Obama rhetoric and post it on a FOX NEWS page any where and it would blend in to the SAME rhetoric they write themselves so whats yor point?? You like Fox News and hate the liberals. So what?? why do we care?
Have a happy republican life having tantrums and writing how much you HATE the liberals, you've learned the SAME tactics well......yawn.
This coming from a liberal, and we know what all the liberals did during the Bush years: whine, pout, moan, cry, sulk.
The author states that he knows FOX isn't "Fair and Balanced" like they claim to be, that should tell you that he isn't getting all his info from FOX. Read the whole article next time. If you stand up for Obama on this issue then you are a mindless sheep.
Arvensis
posted 11/08/09 @ 10:55 AM MST
Originally posted byjohn649
I think your article will a primer for the republican party politics. You written nothing new here. One could take your anti-Obama rhetoric and post it on a FOX NEWS page any where and it would blend in to the SAME rhetoric they write themselves so whats yor point?? You like Fox News and hate the liberals. So what?? why do we care?
Have a happy republican life having tantrums and writing how much you HATE the liberals, you've learned the SAME tactics well......yawn.
Stay in your slumber John. If you ever want to get out of bed, I will be here to make you coffee and breakfast.
Registered Independent
posted 11/08/09 @ 3:29 PM MST
Response to John 649:
Barak Obama and Fox News are the "interested parties" on opposite sides of this Free Speech issue. Since none of this has reached the level of the courts (yet); it is instructive to look to an objective observer, for their take on this emerging First Amendment debate.
Like The Washington Post, for instance. Who happen to have considerable first-hand experience in the area of press arguments with a president.
Is it your claim that The Washington Post is secretly run by Republicans? Are they just another branch of the right wing, taking their marching orders from Fox News and Rush Limbaugh?
How about the 51% of voters who now disapprove of this president's performance, when 68% of them approved of him just last spring. They all must have lost their minds at the same time, one must assume.
Meanwhile, one could easily take your fervent defense of Obama and send it to Newsweek, or have MSNBC read it on the air; and it would blend in seamlessly with any of their their so-called "reporting" on this president.
So what's your point, one might ask in return. Other than your apoplexy over finding that every month, yet more people and more news sources openly refute the divinity of Barak, The Anointed One.
Likewise, why should anyone care that you and James are having trouble adjusting to the reality that Barak Obama's "honeymoon period" is over.
Obama managed to drive his own poll ratings below 50% in record time for a president. It took George Bush 39 months to get down below 50% in the polls, with the press skewed predominantly against him. Yet it only took Obama 9 months to get down that low, with most of the press genuflecting in his direction. Quite an achievement.
Another ground-breaking "first" for Barak Obama.
Barak Obama and Fox News are the "interested parties" on opposite sides of this Free Speech issue. Since none of this has reached the level of the courts (yet); it is instructive to look to an objective observer, for their take on this emerging First Amendment debate.
Like The Washington Post, for instance. Who happen to have considerable first-hand experience in the area of press arguments with a president.
Is it your claim that The Washington Post is secretly run by Republicans? Are they just another branch of the right wing, taking their marching orders from Fox News and Rush Limbaugh?
How about the 51% of voters who now disapprove of this president's performance, when 68% of them approved of him just last spring. They all must have lost their minds at the same time, one must assume.
Meanwhile, one could easily take your fervent defense of Obama and send it to Newsweek, or have MSNBC read it on the air; and it would blend in seamlessly with any of their their so-called "reporting" on this president.
So what's your point, one might ask in return. Other than your apoplexy over finding that every month, yet more people and more news sources openly refute the divinity of Barak, The Anointed One.
Likewise, why should anyone care that you and James are having trouble adjusting to the reality that Barak Obama's "honeymoon period" is over.
Obama managed to drive his own poll ratings below 50% in record time for a president. It took George Bush 39 months to get down below 50% in the polls, with the press skewed predominantly against him. Yet it only took Obama 9 months to get down that low, with most of the press genuflecting in his direction. Quite an achievement.
Another ground-breaking "first" for Barak Obama.
Originally posted byjohn649
I think your article will a primer for the republican party politics. You written nothing new here. One could take your anti-Obama rhetoric and post it on a FOX NEWS page any where and it would blend in to the SAME rhetoric they write themselves so whats yor point?? You like Fox News and hate the liberals. So what?? why do we care?
Have a happy republican life having tantrums and writing how much you HATE the liberals, you've learned the SAME tactics well......yawn.
Registered Independent
posted 11/08/09 @ 4:03 PM MST
Response to Zach:
Zach you are hilarious! We are laughing out loud here. It's a talent, the way you are so funny while at the same time being precisely on target.
Write on!
Zach you are hilarious! We are laughing out loud here. It's a talent, the way you are so funny while at the same time being precisely on target.
Write on!
Originally posted byjohn649
I think your article will a primer for the republican party politics. You written nothing new here. One could take your anti-Obama rhetoric and post it on a FOX NEWS page any where and it would blend in to the SAME rhetoric they write themselves so whats yor point?? You like Fox News and hate the liberals. So what?? why do we care?
Have a happy republican life having tantrums and writing how much you HATE the liberals, you've learned the SAME tactics well......yawn.
- Displaying 1 - 36 of 36
jimmy
posted 10/27/09 @ 8:16 AM MST
Furthermore you asserted that FOX has the largest audience. That would be like calling Everest a big mountain, you are not wrong just lacking the right amount of emphasis. FOX, during prime time has more viewers than every other major news network combined. Why... perhaps they are "fair and balanced"...