Obama vs. Fox News [Archive] - SpursTalk.com Forums

DarrinS

10-20-2009, 12:35 PM

I think it is really stupid for the Obama admin to get into this fight.

Thoughts?

DarrinS

10-20-2009, 12:37 PM

Jake Tapper questions Gibbs.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/10/todays-qs-for-os-wh-10202009.html

Tapper: It’s escaped none of our notice that the White House has decided in the last few weeks to declare one of our sister organizations “not a news organization” and to tell the rest of us not to treat them like a news organization. Can you explain why it’s appropriate for the White House to decide that a news organization is not one –

(Crosstalk)

Gibbs: Jake, we render, we render an opinion based on some of their coverage and the fairness that, the fairness of that coverage.

Tapper: But that’s a pretty sweeping declaration that they are “not a news organization.” How are they any different from, say –

Gibbs: ABC -

Tapper: ABC. MSNBC. Univision. I mean how are they any different?

Gibbs: You and I should watch sometime around 9 o’clock tonight. Or 5 o’clock this afternoon.

Tapper: I’m not talking about their opinion programming or issues you have with certain reports. I’m talking about saying thousands of individuals who work for a media organization, do not work for a “news organization” -- why is that appropriate for the White House to say?

Gibbs: That’s our opinion. -- (translation: Fox doesn't suck us off like the rest of the networks.)

DaBears

10-20-2009, 12:50 PM

Even if Obama went on FOX NEWS and let journalists rip him a new one after all the chocies he's made or not made, Fox would just find something else to take shots at the guy its today's politics its sucks i know... Doesnt matter which side of the fence your on, the mainstream media needs something to talk about... Todays news is not reporting the news (by news i amean facts) anymore is now a form of entertainment which news was never intended to be.... Its about rating in todays world and not reporting the facts..

LnGrrrR

10-20-2009, 12:55 PM

Why do you want to take away the President's freedom to choose what news agencies he talks to? :lol:rolleyes

DarrinS

10-20-2009, 12:57 PM

Crookshanks

10-20-2009, 01:06 PM

I think Fox hopes Obama keeps it up - their ratings are up 20% since the Obama administration targeted them. :lmao

TheProfessor

10-20-2009, 01:21 PM

I think he's trying to cement Fox's marginalization with independent voters. Personally, I believe it's beneath the presidential office to remark on a news organization's journalistic integrity or lack thereof, but they must think there's something to be reaped from it.

spursncowboys

10-20-2009, 01:34 PM

Bush took the media's crap the entire time. He was question on everything and about everything. Obama only has one to really prepare answers for.

DarrinS

10-20-2009, 01:38 PM

In case people are wondering, this is the correct way for the press to interact with the POTUS

YLYtHHxTTmc

Winehole23

10-20-2009, 01:40 PM

Didn't GWB basically freeze out MSNBC? Is this really so unusual?

As to whether this is good strategy or not time will tell. People don't think of the media as being an impartial gatekeepers anymore.

If the media picks sides -- i.e., is biased, as left and right both claim -- why should the government decline to hail it's declared enemies, as it closes the door of official access?

clambake

10-20-2009, 01:42 PM

by the way......helen thomas is alive and well.

jack sommerset

10-20-2009, 01:42 PM

SnakeBoy

10-20-2009, 01:53 PM

Didn't GWB basically freeze out MSNBC? Is this really so unusual?

It's not unusual for an administration to freeze out a news organization. What is unusual is for is for an administration to pick a public fight with one. Obama will lose the fight.

Gibbs: You and I should watch sometime around 9 o’clock tonight. Or 5 o’clock this afternoon.

Tapper should have responded by asking which msnbc primetime show he wanted to compare to fox.

Countdown With Keith Olbermann
Hardball with Chris Matthews
The Ed Show
The Rachel Maddow Show

boutons_deux

10-20-2009, 01:57 PM

I don't think it's much of a fight.

WH said Fox isn't a news org, but an (unfair and unbalanced) Repug house organ.

No fighting, just calling out biased hate media for what it is. It's great to get such obvious, undeniable truth coming from the WH.

Now Fox can try to refute, they'll fail, except in their own fantasy world.

Winehole23

10-20-2009, 01:58 PM

Obama will lose the fight.I love how quickly political animosity becomes oracular and clairvoyant.

DarrinS

10-20-2009, 02:04 PM

by the way......helen thomas is alive and well.

Yes, she is.

http://rawstory.com/2009/10/pr-expert-obama-attacking-fox/

Helen Thomas warns Obama on Fox: ‘You can’t kill the messenger’

By David Edwards and Daniel Tencer
Monday, October 19th, 2009 -- 9:05 am

Helen Thomas, the longest-serving White House correspondent in the Washington press corps, has a few choice words for President Barack Obama in his battle against Fox News: "Stay out of these fights."

Speaking on MSNBC's Morning Joe, the Hearst Newspapers columnist, who as White House correspondent has covered every president since John F. Kennedy, told Obama: "They can only take you down. You can't kill the messenger."

Thomas was speaking after yet another round of Sunday talk shows in which senior White House staffers blasted Fox News for its coverage of their administration. That follows a month of what amounts to a White House boycott of Fox News, ever since the Fox network failed to run the president's address on health care to a joint session of Congress in September.

Host Joe Scarborough played clips of senior presidential adviser David Axelrod declaring that Fox "is not really news," while White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel told the media Fox News is "not a news organization so much as it has a perspective."

Donny Deutsch, a former advertising executive and MSNBC host, told Scarborough that the White House shouldn't even mention Fox by name. Not mentioning your opponent's name is "marketing 101," he said.

"They are elevating Fox," Deutsch said. "Think about this. It's the president of the United States, the commander of the free world, versus a television network with a couple million viewers."

Scarborough, himself a former US House representative, pointed out that Fox's ratings have been "through the roof" since the White House began attacking it by name. "What did the Bush White House do when they were compared to Nazis and fascists? The Bush White House did nothing, they didn't elevate it."

But Morning Joe co-host Mika Brzezinski disagreed with that line of argument, saying the White House's portrayal of Fox News as the official voice of the opposition "may be strategically smart." :lmao

"I think that perhaps it might be easier for them and strategically better down the road if the White House takes on these illegitimate Republican props, as opposed to someone who has real ideas who can take on White House policies," she said.

For his part, Scarborough said he believed the White House spat with Fox was simply the administration playing to its base.

"They attack Rush Limbaugh, they attack Glenn Beck, they attack all of these other people because they know their hard core base is going to love it, their hard core base is going to salivate. And they know they're not going to give them what they want when it comes to policy. They're not going to be able to shut down Gitmo the way they promised, they're not going to be able to get out of Iraq the way they promised. So what they're doing is playing to their hard core base."

Both Scarborough and Deutsch pointed out that, in fact, the Bush White House also had a policy of avoiding unfriendly media outlets -- such as MSNBC.

And "John McCain's campaign did the same thing," Scarborough said. "They went to the network chiefs and said, 'We're not coming'."

And in a very telling aside, Deutsch noted: "I don't think the American public understands the behind-the-scenes that goes on between Washington and the media. If they did, I think that's the way to kill their credibility."

clambake

10-20-2009, 02:07 PM

thats the point.

SnakeBoy

10-20-2009, 02:12 PM

I love how quickly political animosity becomes oracular and clairvoyant.

No animosity just a statement of fact. The american people hold the administration accountable for what happens in their lives. They don't hold talking heads or news organizations accountable. That's the flaw in the administrations tactic. They believe Beck/Hannity/Oreilly are influencing the presidents approval ratings when in fact they have no influence at all. If they did then Bush would be our most popular president and McCain would be president.

If you want to argue why it is a good tactic on the part of the administration then feel free WH.

jman3000

10-20-2009, 02:15 PM

It's a stupid fight to pick.

A large chunk of Fox's viewers are just people looking for entertainment. They know not to take anything doing with commentators seriously. The people who do take them seriously are idiots anyway... so what's the point?

Tapper should have responded by asking which msnbc primetime show he wanted to compare to fox.

The Ed Show

He should have went with that one. I've only seen it a couple of times, but holy shit is that guy a hack. His first words after coming back from a break were "I gotta tell you people, I am loving this president right now!".

oi vey.

Winehole23

10-20-2009, 02:15 PM

If you want to argue why it is a good tactic on the part of the administration then feel free WH.I doubt it is, but I wouldn't bet on it either.

I can't foresee what will happen. Bully on you if you think you can.

clambake

10-20-2009, 02:16 PM

eh, americans understand that fox survives by scaring the weak to their side.

you can smell the fear in here.

jman3000

10-20-2009, 02:17 PM

It's impossible to be objective anyways. As soon as you take a stance that you feel is objective, you'll have whichever side that's oppossed to your position calling you a liberal/conservative.

doobs

10-20-2009, 02:41 PM

Rick Santelli
Jim Cramer
Rush Limbaugh
The Crowley/Gates Affair
The New Yorker

Time to add all of Fox News to the list.

* To be fair, the New Yorker thing happened during the campaign, but it was beneath him even then as a Senator and presidential candidate.

xrayzebra

10-20-2009, 02:44 PM

Why do you want to take away the President's freedom to choose what news agencies he talks to? :lol:rolleyes

Because he is President. And he doesn't have that choice. He
is suppose to be President of all the people. Not just those he
chooses to be Present of. If he cant answer all the questions then
get the hell out of Dodge.

SnakeBoy

10-20-2009, 02:48 PM

* To be fair, the New Yorker thing happened during the campaign, but it was beneath him even then as a Senator and presidential candidate.

I forget, what did the New Yorker do?

ChumpDumper

10-20-2009, 02:52 PM

Because he is President. And he doesn't have that choice. He
is suppose to be President of all the people. Not just those he
chooses to be Present of. If he cant answer all the questions then
get the hell out of Dodge.So when Bush refused to call on Helen Thomas for three years, you thought he should get the hell out of dodge, right?

xrayzebra

10-20-2009, 03:00 PM

So when Bush refused to call on Helen Thomas for three years, you thought he should get the hell out of dodge, right?

Chump, I would bet even you wouldn't "call on" Helen Thomas.....:lol

clambake

10-20-2009, 03:02 PM

...ray...they even made her sit in the back of the room. it's not like she's beckkk

ChumpDumper

10-20-2009, 03:04 PM

Chump, I would bet even you wouldn't "call on" Helen Thomas.....:lolFor her to ask a question were I president?

Sure.

Bush didn't for three years -- so you think he should have gotten the hell out of dodge.

Or you were just full of shit when you said that.

Which is it?

Crookshanks

10-20-2009, 03:54 PM

So when Bush refused to call on Helen Thomas for three years, you thought he should get the hell out of dodge, right?
He didn't call on her for a question, but he didn't have Karl Rove going on the Sunday shows criticizing her and saying she wasn't a real journalist and that the other journalists should snub her.

That's the difference.

clambake

10-20-2009, 04:02 PM

He didn't call on her for a question, but he didn't have Karl Rove going on the Sunday shows criticizing her and saying she wasn't a real journalist and that the other journalists should snub her.

That's the difference.

:lol they shoved that poor old woman to the back of the bus.

DarrinS

10-20-2009, 04:03 PM

For her to ask a question were I president?

Sure.

Bush didn't for three years -- so you think he should have gotten the hell out of dodge.

Or you were just full of shit when you said that.

Which is it?

So, which three years between 2000-2008 were those?

ChumpDumper

10-20-2009, 04:06 PM

Crookshanks

10-20-2009, 04:09 PM

I was talking to xray, doofus.
And I was talking to you - what's your point? If you only wanted to converse with xray - then say so - or pm him. :rolleyes

ChumpDumper

10-20-2009, 04:10 PM

so, which three years between 2000-2008 were those?2003-2006.

clambake

10-20-2009, 04:12 PM

And I was talking to you - what's your point? If you only wanted to converse with xray - then say so - or pm him. :rolleyes

:nope i'm pretty sure it's this attitude that got you canned.

ChumpDumper

10-20-2009, 04:12 PM

And I was talking to you - what's your point? If you only wanted to converse with xray - then say so - or pm him. :rolleyesI was addressing xray's opinion of presidents who don't answer questions from everybody.

Not yours.

I had xray's quote in my post.

Not yours.

I was not talking to you.

You're also an idiot, but in a different way. My having to spell it out to you is proof of that idiocy.

DarrinS

10-20-2009, 04:18 PM

2003-2006.

And she's still working? You mean, the evil Bush admin didn't put her out of business?

If you search Youtube for Helen Thomas and Bush there are a shitload of hits.

:sleep

Crookshanks

10-20-2009, 04:22 PM

:nope i'm pretty sure it's this attitude that got you canned.
I wasn't canned - the whole company is closing. And chump brings out the worst in a lot of people here.

Crookshanks

10-20-2009, 04:23 PM

I was addressing xray's opinion of presidents who don't answer questions from everybody.

Not yours.

I had xray's quote in my post.

Not yours.

I was not talking to you.

You're also an idiot, but in a different way. My having to spell it out to you is proof of that idiocy.
Oh - I see... according the Chump's rules, no one can comment on one of his posts unless he was directly talking to that poster. Got it... :rolleyes

ChumpDumper

10-20-2009, 04:24 PM

And she's still working? You mean, the evil Bush admin didn't put her out of business?

If you search Youtube for Helen Thomas and Bush there are a shitload of hits.

:sleepYour name also isn't xray.

You are also an idiot.

:sleep

ChumpDumper

10-20-2009, 04:25 PM

Oh - I see... according the Chump's rules, no one can comment on one of his posts unless he was directly talking to that poster. Got it... :rolleyesYou can comment, but you are too stupid to realize that wasn't what xray and I were discussing at all.

Got it?

ChumpDumper

10-20-2009, 04:26 PM

I wasn't canned - the whole company is closing. And chump brings out the worst in a lot of people here.You were already pretty horrible, but please -- continue whining about me.

coyotes_geek

10-20-2009, 05:09 PM

It's completely inappropriate for a president to attempt to persuade the public as to who in the media they should be trusting.

hope4dopes

10-20-2009, 05:14 PM

Crookshanks

10-20-2009, 05:25 PM

I love it, chicago style thuggocracy, the dumb shits have stepped in it agian.
this will estrange even more indepedents and true liberals from the Soros DNC. The Obama administration is looking more and more like Chavez daily. The only thing more ridiculous and knuckelheaded are the people trying to defend these bully boys.FOX will lose zero viewers, and will pick up new ones because of it.
One of Rush Limbaugh's sayings is that if there is a pile of excrement anywhere around, the libs will find a way to step in it.

And I've heard that Fox News ratings are up 20% since this all began. People are watching to see what all the fuss is about.

hope4dopes

10-20-2009, 05:30 PM

The Whitehouse has decided that FOX isn't legitamite, and they've also decided that Satuday Night Live isn't funny anymore.

ChumpDumper

10-20-2009, 05:32 PM

And I've heard that Fox News ratings are up 20% since this all began.Where did you hear that?

MannyIsGod

10-20-2009, 05:36 PM

Where did you hear that?

wait for it...

wait for it...

Fox News?

Personally I don't give two shits about this topic, carry on.

Winehole23

10-20-2009, 05:38 PM

It's completely inappropriate for a president to attempt to persuade the public as to who in the media they should be trusting.WH opinion of Fox is psyops? Maybe.

The information war is unavoidable. If policies can't be made to satisfy the people, the people must be bent to the policy somehow.

Singling out Fox looks clunky, but I don't think Obama chose the wrong target, or that he did so impulsively.

Fox News is his obvious MSM enemy.

Fox will have to take considerable pains to refute this impression, but honestly, I don't think they have the heart to do it, and really, who would be fooled?

Crookshanks

10-20-2009, 05:40 PM

Where did you hear that?
This is an excerpt from an article in the NYT from October 17th.

Even though almost all the critiques contained a kernel of truth, in each instance the folks who had the barrels of ink, and now pixels, seemed to come out ahead. So far, the only winner in this latest dispute seems to be Fox News. Ratings are up 20 percent this year, and the network basked for a week in the antagonism of a sitting president.

It could all be written off as a sideshow, but it may present a genuine problem for Mr. Obama, who took great pains during the campaign to depict himself as being above the fray of over-heated partisan squabbling. In his victory speech he promised, “I will listen to you, especially when we disagree.”

Or not. Under the direction of Ms. Dunn, the administration has begun to punch back. On Sept. 20, the president visited all the Sunday talk shows save Fox News’, with Ms. Dunn explaining that Fox was not a legitimate news organization, but a “wing of the Republican Party (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/r/republican_party/index.html?inline=nyt-org).”
============================

I've also heard this on various news reports in the last couple of days.

hope4dopes

10-20-2009, 05:42 PM

I wonder if this is the modren equivalent to book burnings.Dissedent and decadent tracts being publicly burned........I think this is inciting hate not to put to fine a point on it.

ChumpDumper

10-20-2009, 05:44 PM

So this year, not "since this began."

I believe it.

MannyIsGod

10-20-2009, 05:46 PM

English is hard, huh Crook?

Crookshanks

10-20-2009, 05:47 PM

Here's another little snippet from the Baltimore Sun:

"I had to chuckle at the article "Fight between Obama (http://www.baltimoresun.com/topic/politics/government/barack-obama-PEPLT007408.topic) White House (http://www.baltimoresun.com/topic/politics/government/executive-branch/the-white-house-PLCUL000110.topic) and Fox News (http://www.baltimoresun.com/topic/economy-business-finance/media/television-industry/fox-ORCRP000008831.topic) continues, with no clear winner in sight" (Oct. 20)

No clear winner in sight? Fox's ratings are up almost 20 percent this year, and President Obama's job approval has plummeted 20 percent this year. The winner couldn't be more clear."

ChumpDumper

10-20-2009, 05:48 PM

So this year, not "since this began."

I believe it.

Crookshanks

10-20-2009, 05:49 PM

Okay - okay - so it's for the year. Sorry about that - that part wasn't mentioned in the newscasts (and no, it wasn't Fox News). They just reported on the story and said the ratings were up 20%.

But hey - at least I googled it and got some information.

ChumpDumper

10-20-2009, 05:51 PM

Which newscasts?

hope4dopes

10-20-2009, 05:56 PM

This is like the Al Capone school of statesmanship.

ChumpDumper

10-20-2009, 05:57 PM

This is like the Al Capone school of statesmanship.In what way is it like Al Capone?

Nbadan

10-20-2009, 05:58 PM

FAUX News is like a bloody train-wreck, everybody wants to see but then you really regret after...everybody knows what FAUX News is about, liberals laugh, moderates are dumbfounded and wing-nuts hear their 2010 battle-cry...

....if they could only vote for Glenn BecKKK and Limpbaugh it would be a match made in hell...but good luck trying to get GOP congressional approval ratings above their dismal levels of what? 30%... as long as talk-radio is in charge of the GOP....

coyotes_geek

10-20-2009, 05:58 PM

WH opinion of Fox is psyops? Maybe.

The information war is unavoidable. If policies can't be made to satisfy the people, the people must be bent to the policy somehow.

You're right that's how it works, but in the spirit of the Constitution I don't think the founding fathers had in mind the WH telling the people whom they should deem credible and whom they shouldn't.

Singling out Fox looks clunky, but I don't think Obama chose the wrong target, or that he did so impulsively.

Fox News is his obvious MSM enemy.

No doubt. Fox won't tell the story like he wants it to be told, so he's trying to discredit them and persuade people to not watch them anymore. That's all well and good for talk show hosts and chatboard posters, but it's something that I think the POTUS has a duty to stay above.

Fox will have to take considerable pains to refute this impression, but honestly, I don't think they have the heart to do it, and really, who would be fooled?

Actually I doubt Fox has any intention to try and refute it. Fox has carved a niche for themselves and all Obama did was reinforce that niche'.

hope4dopes

10-20-2009, 06:01 PM

You're right that's how it works, but in the spirit of the Constitution I don't think the founding fathers had in mind the WH telling the people whom they should deem credible and whom they shouldn't.

No doubt. Fox won't tell the story like he wants it to be told, so he's trying to discredit them and persuade people to not watch them anymore. That's all well and good for talk show hosts and chatboard posters, but it's something that I think the POTUS has a duty to stay above.

Actually I doubt Fox has any intention to try and refute it. Fox has carved a niche for themselves and all Obama did was reinforce that niche'. true words.

hope4dopes

10-20-2009, 06:02 PM

hope4dopes

10-20-2009, 06:03 PM

In what way is it like Al Capone?go find a banana.:sleep

clambake

10-20-2009, 06:03 PM

al capone lol

Winehole23

10-20-2009, 06:04 PM

That's all well and good for talk show hosts and chatboard posters, but it's something that I think the POTUS has a duty to stay above.I wish he would stay above it too. We'll see how it works out. I don't think it's any big tragedy for Obama, Fox or the American people, though.

Nbadan

10-20-2009, 06:04 PM

ChumpDumper

10-20-2009, 06:05 PM

go find a banana.:sleepYou said it was like Al Capone.

In what way is it like Al Capone?

Winehole23

10-20-2009, 06:08 PM

Actually I doubt Fox has any intention to try and refute it. Fox has carved a niche for themselves and all Obama did was reinforce that niche'.I think he meant to.

coyotes_geek

10-20-2009, 06:09 PM

I wish he would stay above it too. We'll see how it works out. I don't think it's any big tragedy for Obama, Fox or the American people, though.

True, the Obama worshipers weren't watching Fox to begin with and the Fox watchers aren't going to quit watching just because Obama thinks they should.

hope4dopes

10-20-2009, 06:10 PM

..niches don't elect squat...the GOP went with FAUX in 2006 and lost their asses off...they went with promises of a GOP recoup in 2008 and again lost their asses...now FAUX News is saying that they'll recoup one or both houses in 2010...obviously, they haven't learned their lesson yet.... Then why is the WH going to such extremes to silence them and assasinate them, the DNC doesn't share your rosy picture of 2010. It seems there is alot of democrats not on board this bus.

coyotes_geek

10-20-2009, 06:11 PM

..niches don't elect squat...the GOP went with FAUX in 2006 and lost their asses off...they went with promises of a GOP recoup in 2008 and again lost their asses...now FAUX News is saying that they'll recoup one or both houses in 2010...obviously, they haven't learned their lesson yet....

Fox doesn't give a damn who gets elected. All they care about is people tuning in to watch. And they're the best in the business at it.

Nbadan

10-20-2009, 06:14 PM

Like I said, a train wreck...

clambake

10-20-2009, 06:14 PM

i watch fox all the time. have for years.

Nbadan

10-20-2009, 06:15 PM

...but you do it for the amusement value...

hope4dopes

10-20-2009, 06:17 PM

True, the Obama worshipers weren't watching Fox to begin with and the Fox watchers aren't going to quit watching just because Obama thinks they should.

RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)

Saul aulinsky's rules for radicals.

clambake

10-20-2009, 06:17 PM

...but you do it for the amusement value...

that....and i want to see what micca learned today.

clambake

10-20-2009, 06:18 PM

so which is it? saul or al?

xrayzebra

10-20-2009, 06:33 PM

spursncowboys

10-20-2009, 06:35 PM

This is an excerpt from an article in the NYT from October 17th.

Even though almost all the critiques contained a kernel of truth, in each instance the folks who had the barrels of ink, and now pixels, seemed to come out ahead. So far, the only winner in this latest dispute seems to be Fox News. Ratings are up 20 percent this year, and the network basked for a week in the antagonism of a sitting president.

It could all be written off as a sideshow, but it may present a genuine problem for Mr. Obama, who took great pains during the campaign to depict himself as being above the fray of over-heated partisan squabbling. In his victory speech he promised, “I will listen to you, especially when we disagree.”

Or not. Under the direction of Ms. Dunn, the administration has begun to punch back. On Sept. 20, the president visited all the Sunday talk shows save Fox News’, with Ms. Dunn explaining that Fox was not a legitimate news organization, but a “wing of the Republican Party (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/r/republican_party/index.html?inline=nyt-org).”
============================

I've also heard this on various news reports in the last couple of days. The only thing more believable than a NYTimes story is a NYTimes story with an unidentified source.

hope4dopes

10-20-2009, 06:37 PM

so which is it? saul or al? al I guess that's relevant to the WH thug like tactics with a free press.Or will ron emmanuele now dictate to us what we will and won't be allowed to listen to....for our own good of course ,I mean in the intrest of democracy.

clambake

10-20-2009, 06:41 PM

al I guess that's relevant to the WH thug like tactics with a free press.
how. explain.

Or will ron emmanuele now dictate to us what we will and won't be allowed to listen to....for our own good of course ,I mean in the intrest of democracy.
what did he say to us?

ChumpDumper

10-20-2009, 06:41 PM

al I guess that's relevant to the WH thug like tactics with a free press.Or will ron emmanuele now dictate to us what we will and won't be allowed to listen to....for our own good of course ,I mean in the intrest of democracy.When did Al Capone do that with the free press?

clambake

10-20-2009, 06:43 PM

what about Dillinger?

spursncowboys

10-20-2009, 06:50 PM

If we are talking about the daytime actual newsgroup then I'll go Fox. The two girls on MSNBC and Sanchez on CNN are way more opinionated.

clambake

10-20-2009, 07:24 PM

who was talkin about me?

hope4dopes

10-20-2009, 08:39 PM

AAAAH clambake and chimp, it's like a deranged pack of chiuahuahs nipping at your ankles.

ChumpDumper

10-20-2009, 08:51 PM

Ahhhhh, micca. He always gets pissy when he can't explain himself.

iggypop123

10-20-2009, 09:12 PM

i like fox news. its entertaining but not necessarily giving all sides of the story. i think the trouble is having commentators as journalists. smith is ok like bair they just deliver the news, smith just happens to have an amazing voice. somehow glenn becks dumbass is now an investigative reporter that exposes how art and sculptures are ways fascism exists or oligarhy.. hannity probably masturbating to reagans picture ...well you get the picture those guys are the trouble

Spursmania

10-20-2009, 10:02 PM

I think Fox hopes Obama keeps it up - their ratings are up 20% since the Obama administration targeted them. :lmao

Really-what a petty and stupid thing to do. :lmao

DarrinS

10-21-2009, 04:35 PM

PNDT03KnNh8

DarrinS

10-21-2009, 04:37 PM

Maddow/Olbermann Invited to White House Chat with Obama, But Fox Isn't a News Organization? (http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/fnc/maddowolbermann_invited_to_white_house_chat_with_o bama_but_fox_isnt_a_news_organization_140839.asp)

Here's a curious turn in the White House vs. Fox News fight.

On Monday, MSNBC's Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow were among several people who attended an off-the-record briefing with Pres. Obama at the White House. Sources tell us other attendees at the two-and-a-half hour chat included Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post, Maureen Dowd of the New York Times, Gwen Ifill of PBS and Gloria Borger of CNN. Perhaps not surprisingly, no one from Fox News was in the room.

This fact quickly turned into ammunition for the folks at FOX. Last night on "Special Report," Bret Baier revealed the information pointing out that opinion hosts from one channel were being invited to a briefing with the Commander-in-Chief, all the while Fox was declared not a news organization.

And it continued on Fox & Friends this morning, as the troika talked about the back-and-forth ABC News White House correspondent Jake Tapper had with press secretary Robert Gibbs in the morning off-camera gaggle yesterday.

Def Rowe

10-21-2009, 05:28 PM

Who gives a shit.

DarrinS

10-21-2009, 06:07 PM

^Is that you in your avatar.

Mullet man lives!

:lmao

Def Rowe

10-21-2009, 06:59 PM

^Is that you in your avatar.

Mullet man lives!

:lmao

Bitch... I don't cut my bangs.

Def Rowe

10-21-2009, 07:12 PM

No seriously. Why should Obama invite anyone from Fox news to anything when they're obviously strongly against him?

hope4dopes

10-21-2009, 07:18 PM

No seriously. Why should Obama invite anyone from Fox news to anything when they're obviously strongly against him? Exactlly dude I mean what's the point of having a press if you can't control them.

George Gervin's Afro

10-21-2009, 07:27 PM

Exactlly dude I mean what's the point of having a press if you can't control them.

did u complain when hush and hannity went to WH? You did't because you're a hypocrite..but you wear that proudly..:toast to a coward and a hypocrite

SnakeBoy

10-21-2009, 07:48 PM

did u complain when hush and hannity went to WH? You did't because you're a hypocrite..but you wear that proudly..:toast to a coward and a hypocrite

Did you complain when Rush and Hannity went to the WH?

Jacob1983

10-22-2009, 01:06 AM

This whole fight that Obama has started with FOX News just shows how weak and how much of a pussy he is. He obviously can't handle criticism that well. Bush fucked up America for 8 years but he didn't give a shit about his haters. He was a tough fucker who didn't care what his haters said. That's what Obama needs to do. He doesn't need to give a fuck about his haters. And Obama also needs to stop caring about being popular and liked. And I'm pretty sure that FOX News gets more than a couple million viewers. You may hate FOX News but the channel has been successful in the ratings department.

Nbadan

10-22-2009, 01:24 AM

:rolleyes

Yeah, we are all witness to how well Dubya's strategy of treating the press like pussies worked out for him and the GOP...why in the hell would Obama want to follow that tragedy? ...besides, Obama is just calling a spade a spade...FAUX News has marginalized itself by leaning so far to the GOP that it should not be thought of as any more of a news organization than the 700 Club....same for local stations like WOAI...

FuzzyLumpkins

10-22-2009, 05:58 AM

I think it is really stupid for the Obama admin to get into this fight.

Thoughts?

Who gives a shit? Journalists bitching about a guy not wanting to talk to other journalists. That really is one thing that I wish people would grasp: journalists are not remotely objective when they are talking about journalism.

Its kind of like the big uproar the media puts on when a sports star doesnt talk to them. Really it doesnt matter in any meaningful way shape or form other than for them, the journalsists themselves, and their interests.

Its pretty sad. the state department opening talks with Iran and Sudan gets less coverage than this tripe. I mean nuclear proliferation and killings similar to 1977 Cambodia or Fox News?

DarrinS

10-22-2009, 08:09 AM

I like what Obama says about 0:23 seconds into this clip: "I think the American people are a lot more interested in what we're doing to create jobs or how we're hanlding the situation in Afghanistan."

Well, yes, they are.

4LHeJM4A2Ig

ChumpDumper

10-22-2009, 08:18 AM

Seeing as you are spending so much time bitching about this subject, I don't think you are a lot more interested in anything else.

Jacob1983

10-23-2009, 01:13 AM

Who's the milf in that clip?

Wild Cobra

10-23-2009, 10:01 AM

ChumpDumper

10-23-2009, 12:02 PM

I don't think any of you actually are more interested in Afghanistan or jobs.

DarrinS

10-23-2009, 12:16 PM

I don't think any of you actually are more interested in Afghanistan or jobs.

Why do you say that?

Ignignokt

10-23-2009, 12:24 PM

I don't think any of you actually are more interested in Afghanistan or jobs.

If we were to go by results.. we'd think this comment was attributed to obama's whitehouse.

Winehole23

10-23-2009, 05:41 PM

Tucker Carlson and the right's perpetual self-victimhood (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2009/10/23/carlson/index.html)

Complaints that the media has been "silent" about Obama's "attacks" on Fox are the opposite of reality (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2009/10/23/carlson/index.html)

By Glenn Greenwald

The number one rule of American politics: the greatest, most insatiable need of the standard conservative is to turn themselves into oppressed little victims. In The Daily Beast today (http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-10-22/why-the-white-house-bullies-fox/?cid=hp:beastoriginalsC2), Tucker Carlson devotes his entire column to complaining that Obama is "bullying" Fox News, absurdly claiming that the White House and liberals are trying "to use government power to muzzle opinions they don't agree with." Needless to say, Carlson doesn't say a word about the endless (http://mediamatters.org/research/200910210028) -- and far worse (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2009/10/22/media/index.html) -- attacks (http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=28559) by the Bush White House on a whole array of media outlets, ones that went far beyond mere criticisms.

Continue Reading (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/#story_full_7abbbb278021025b175c8e934a8a7249)

But far more delusional is Carlson's central complaint: that "the press decide[d] to go along with all of this" -- meaning Obama's criticisms of Fox. He echoes the typical, woe-is-us conservative whine: "Why is the press corps giving the White House a pass for behavior it would never have tolerated from other administrations?" He righteously condemns what he calls "the press corps' shameful silence" on the Obama/Fox conflict and alleges that "hardly anyone in the press says a word" about this matter.

Is Tucker Carlson lying or just completely ignorant of the subject matter on which he's opining? The press has been anything but "silent" about this. It's been a virtual consensus from establishment pundits and journalists of every type that the Obama White House is doing something terribly wrong by criticizing Fox. And as usual for the vapid, group-think, script-repeating, mindless wind-up dolls who compose the Beltway press corps, they even have their own endlessly repeated platitudes for condemning Obama's criticisms of Fox: it's Nixonesque. Enemies List. Also as usual (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/09/02/borger/), they are echoing the theme propounded by Karl Rove on Fox (http://www.breitbart.tv/rove-compares-obamas-demonization-of-fox-news-to-nixons-enemies-list/): "We heard this before from Richard Nixon. And we have this White House prone to that kind of attitude. . . . This is the White House engaging in its own version of the media Enemies List."

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_MnYI3_FRbbQ/SuG4ifieU7I/AAAAAAAACMI/PpciRsOU7n4/s200/cooper.png (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_MnYI3_FRbbQ/SuG4ifieU7I/AAAAAAAACMI/PpciRsOU7n4/s1600-h/cooper.png)The Washington Post's Ruth Marcus wrote two items condemning (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2009/10/obamas_dumb_war_with_fox_news.html) the Obama White House (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2009/10/the_white_houses_war_with_fox.html#more), saying it has "a Nixonesque -- Agnewesque aroma" and that the Fox criticisms were "dumb" and "weak." Intoning underneath a photo that read: "President Obama's ENEMIES," CNN's Anderson Cooper said (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/lachlan-markay/2009/10/22/anderson-cooper-compares-obama-nixon-spotlights-declining-approval-r): "this White House is starting to look like another White House" -- meaning Nixon's -- "and the comparisons are not flattering." Just yesterday on NPR, NPR's Ken Rudin condemend the Fox criticisms (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=114005771) as "Nixonesque" and accused liberals of cheering on an "enemies list," while The New York Times' David Carr sat beside him and said the President was being "heavy-handed." CNN's David Gergen urged (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/12/white-houses-fox-news-war_n_318025.html) the White House to cease attacking Fox, and (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/12/white-houses-fox-news-war_n_318025.html) "even on MSNBC's 'Morning Joe' Monday, the panelists largely came out against the White House's war against Fox News." Frequent Fox News critic David Zurawick of The Baltimore Sun condemned the criticisms (http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/entertainment/zontv/2009/10/fox_news_channel_anita_dunn_ba.html) and "compared the current administration to the White House of Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew." Numerous other media figures (http://mediamatters.org/blog/200910090010) have sung the same tune (http://mediamatters.org/blog/200910180006).

All that hand-wringing rhetoric: why? Because the Obama administration threatened to criminally prosecute Fox (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/21/AR2006052100348.html)? Or because the adminstration surveilled its reporters' telephone calls (http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/05/federal_source_.html)? Or illegally obtained their telephone records (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/08/AR2008080803603.html)? Or shot missiles at hotels (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,83503,00.html) in which they were staying? Or dropped bombs (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2003/apr/02/broadcasting.iraq1) on their offices (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2001/nov/17/warinafghanistan2001.afghanistan)? Or imprisoned them for years without charges (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/05/11/journalists/)? Or barred Fox reporters (http://mediamatters.org/research/200910210028#3) from riding on administration planes? Or conspired to "weed out" any critical voices from being heard on network and cable news programs (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/05/10/analysts)? No, those are all things that the Bush administration did to reporters (see the links) -- all well above and beyond the numerous (http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=28559), constant rhetorical attacks (http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=28553) from the Bush White House on media organizations they perceived to be hostile. Where was Tucker Carlson when that was happening, or Ruth Marcus, or Anderson Cooper, or David Carr?

There has been a horde of media figures rushing to condemn the Obama administration merely for criticizing Fox's "reporting." Many of these same media figures -- probably most -- were silent in the face not only of identical Bush White House attacks on reporters they disliked, but far more serious and actual threats to press freedom over the last eight years.
Yet perpetual self-victimizer Tucker Carlson has to ignore all these facts -- literally pretend they don't exist -- and completely reverse reality, all so he can whine about how unfair everything is to conservatives like him, how the BigBadLiberalMedia won't criticize Obama even though they were so terribly and harshly critical of Bush. Just compare actual reality to Carlson's complaints about "the press corps' shameful silence" and his claim that "hardly anyone in the press says a word" about Obama's criticisms of Fox. That huge, disturbing and disturbed disparity illustrates howpetulant conservatives literally create their own demented reality, where they always get to be the put-upon victims.

UPDATE: The New York Times reports (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/23/us/politics/23fox.html) that when the White House tried to exclude Fox from a round of interviews with Treasury Department official Kenneth Feinberg, "Fox’s television news competitors refused to go along," insisting that Fox be included. Even Charles Krauthammer, on Fox, praised the media (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NmQ4Mzg5NmJkYzdlYjg5ZGQ0NTFjYjQ2OGU4Y2YxMDA=) for standing up for Fox: "what happened today was other news organizations -- admirably and on principle -- standing up and saying no." And Fox News itself credited (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E11PgsH6MmM) NBC White Correspondent

Savannah Guthrie as "the first reporter to hold President Obama to account for his aides' 'attacks' on Fox News," when she questioned him with hostility about the criticisms.

Numerous establishment journalists have strongly condemned the Obama White House for its criticisms of Fox -- exactly the opposite of Carlson's complaints. The discrepancy between that behavior and their conduct towards the Bush White House's press attacks also demonstrates, as usual, that reality is the exact opposite of the Right's incessant and petulant complaints about "The Liberal Media."

Winehole23

10-23-2009, 05:48 PM

What "controlling the media" really means (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2009/10/22/media/index.html)

The same media whining over criticisms of Fox was happy to be bullied and controlled by the Bush administration.

By Glenn Greenwald
http://images.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/10/22/media/md_horiz.jpg
(updated below)
Hypocrisy is far too common a feature of our political culture to comprehensively chronicle, particularly when there is a change of party control and each side starts doing exactly that to which they spent the last several years vociferously objecting; see here (http://pewresearch.org/databank/dailynumber/?NumberID=874) for a vivid example of that dynamic, from a new Pew poll released today:

Continue Reading (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/#story_full_9db00856267f17cb3e48caa4c9e0bb55)

The belief that the press should keep political leaders from doing things that should not be done often depends on who those political leaders are, or more specifically, which party controls the White House. Currently, in the midst of the Obama administration, two-thirds of Republicans (65%) support the so-called "watchdog role" for the press, compared with 55% of Democrats. But last year, while Bush was still in office, only 44% of Republicans felt it was good that press criticism keeps political leaders honest, and Democrats were much more pro watchdog (71% supported press criticism). This partisan pattern has existed since the question was first asked by Pew Research in 1985.
With hypocrisy that pervasive, who could ever hope to take note of all of it? Still, the complaints from America's Right (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091021/ap_on_go_co/us_obama_enemies_list) -- and especially (http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/10/perino-white-war-on-fox-news-is-like-what-dictators-do.php) former (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/wehner/136562) Bush officials (http://twitter.com/KarlRove/status/5054980492) -- that the Obama administration is attempting to "control the media," all because the White House criticizes Fox News, is in a class of hypocrisy all by itself. That those petulant complaints are being amplified by a virtually unanimous press corps (http://mediamatters.org/blog/200910090010) -- "it's Nixonian!" is their leading group-think cliché (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_10/020566.php) -- makes it all the more intolerable.

John Cole itemizes (http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=28542) just some of the measures adopted by the Bush White House to manipulate, control, punish and bully the very few media outlets which were ever hostile to it -- each of those Bush measures, standing alone, is infinitely more invasive and threatening than the mild and perfectly appropriate criticisms of Fox coming from the Obama White House. Indeed, the Bush White House did exactly the same thing with NBC as the Obama White House is doing with Fox, and virtually all of the media stars (http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=28553) who today are so righteously lamenting the "attacks on Fox" said nothing. Worse, the very same Bush official (http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/10/perino-white-war-on-fox-news-is-like-what-dictators-do.php) who this week said it was "like what dictators do" for the Obama White House to criticize Fox -- Dana Perino -- herself stood at the White House podium a mere two years ago and did exactly that to NBC News (http://vodpod.com/watch/2373384-bush-spokesman-says-obama-spokesmen-shouldnt-criticize-media-after-bush-spokesman-criticized-media).
But the Bush administration did far worse to media outlets than merely criticize them. They explicitly threatened to prosecute New York Times journalists (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/21/AR2006052100348.html) -- to criminally prosecute them -- for reporting on Bush's illegal spying program aimed at American citizens. They imprisoned numerous foreign journalists (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/05/11/journalists/) covering their various wars. The administration's obsessive and unprecedented secrecy -- Dick Cheney refused to disclose even the most basic information about his whereabouts, his meetings, or even the number of staff members he had -- was the ultimate form of media control. And what was the Pentagon's embedding process other than an attempt to control media coverage and ensure favorable reporting? One will search in vain for much media protests about any of that.

But it was the Bush Pentagon's "military analyst"/domestic propaganda program that was, far and away, the most egregious case in a long, long time of a White House attempting to control media content and political coverage in the United States. And with very rare exception, not a single television network or cable news program ever even mentioned any of that (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/04/21/pulitzer/) -- despite David Barstow's having won the Pulitzer Prize for uncovering it -- because all their networks were implicated by it. To see how extreme a form of "media control" that was, just look at what the Bush Pentagon itself said it was doing (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/05/10/analysts).

As part of that propaganda program, the Bush DOD -- as they put it -- "develop[ed] a core group from within our media analyst list of those that we can count on to carry our water." They then fed those water-carriers with exclusive, secret tips about what the Government was doing, to ensure that TV programs would be forced to rely only on pro-Bush sources -- armed with "exclusives" -- while ignoring their critics. Here's how the Director of DoD Press Operations explained that tactic in a memo to key Rumsfeld aides, including Larry DiRita, the top Pentagon spokesman:

By providing them with key and valuable information, they become the key go to guys for the networks and it begins to weed out the less reliably friendly analysts by the networks themselves . . . .
The Bush Pentagon had a program "to weed out the less reliably friendly analysts" from appearing on television networks. That would ensure not only that on-air pundits were "carrying water" for the Bush White House, but also that the networks' story choices and coverage of military matters would be shaped by those same water-carriers, since the networks' military analysts "have a huge amount of influence on what stories the network decides to cover proactively with regard to the military. . . . " It's hardly possible to imagine a more blatant effort to "control the media" than that. There is nothing the Obama White House has done regarding the media that even comes close.

Whatever else is true, Fox has taken on a political role that is very rare, at least in modern times, for a large American news organization. Its news coverage is not merely biased or opinionated; there'd be nothing unusual about that. Instead, it is a major participant -- the leading participant -- in organizing, promoting and fueling protests, including street protests, against the government. Fox has undertaken a role typically played by media outlets in, say, Venezuela (http://www.freerctv.com/articles/042207_BBC.pdf) or various unstable, under-developed countries -- sponsoring rather than reporting on protests against the government -- and it is difficult to recall any recent example that is similar.

Fox has every right to do that, but the pretense that it is a news organization is ludicrous -- transparently so -- and there isn't anything remotely wrong with the Obama White House saying so. Even those with high tolerance levels for blatant double standards should have a very hard time watching Bush officials of all people -- along with their media-star allies -- whine about criticisms of Fox coming from the White House, when the prior eight years were marked by an administration that attempted to dominate and control media coverage more than any in modern history, along with a media that seemed perfectly content, even happy, to be controlled.

jack sommerset

10-23-2009, 05:59 PM

:lol Blame Bush!

Winehole23

10-23-2009, 06:04 PM

Comparison isn't blaming.

hope4dopes

10-23-2009, 08:05 PM

Comparison isn't blaming.how' s your knees whiney they holding up? you look ridiculous trying to defend this shit.

Winehole23

10-23-2009, 08:07 PM

how' s your knees whiney they holding up?More fantasies. Have fun.

you look ridiculous trying to defend this shit.I'm not defending anything. Just providing a little perspective. Is that offensive to you?

hope4dopes

10-23-2009, 08:15 PM

More fantasies. Have fun.

I'm not defending anything. Just providing a little perspective. Is that offensive to you? Your not try to provide perspective you twit, your trying to legitamize an outrageous reach, and abuse of the state.

George Gervin's Afro

10-23-2009, 08:25 PM

Your not try to provide perspective you twit, your trying to legitamize an outrageous reach, and abuse of the state.

you're a hypocrite

Winehole23

10-23-2009, 08:26 PM

Your not try to provide perspective you twit, your trying to legitamize an outrageous reach, and abuse of the state.Compared to threatening the NYT with prosecution, putting journalists on the payroll to pimp policy, wiretapping unfriendly reporters and rounding up a bunch of retired military to spoonfeed the American public war propaganda (and pimp military pork) on cable TV, Obama's criticism of Fox doesn't seem too serious to me, even if it is ill-advised.

This is an abuse of state, how?

George Gervin's Afro

10-23-2009, 08:28 PM

Compared to threatening the NYT with prosecution, putting journalists on the payroll to pimp policy, wiretapping unfriendly reporters,

don't forget the gay porn star plant...

.but,but,but, obama hates fox news and i'm a hypocrite waaahhh!

Winehole23

10-23-2009, 08:32 PM

Jeff Gannon.

hope4dopes

10-23-2009, 08:33 PM

Compared to threatening the NYT with prosecution, putting journalists on the payroll to pimp policy, wiretapping unfriendly reporters and rounding up a bunch of retired military to spoonfeed the American public war propaganda (and pimp military pork), Obama's criticism of Fox isn't too serious. Criticism.... you're fucking delusional and a liar.You're not even original, although you never have been, as always you just parrot the line that come out of the WH. denial denial denial denial denial.

Winehole23

10-23-2009, 08:35 PM

What did I deny?

Nbadan

10-23-2009, 08:35 PM

Jeff Gannon.

I still wonder who that dude was giving 'exclusives' too...had to be Karl Rove...

Winehole23

10-23-2009, 08:37 PM

Sometimes news orgs don't get all the access to government they want. Wah.

hope4dopes

10-23-2009, 08:43 PM

Sometimes news orgs don't get all the access to government they want. Wah. You're a facist bitch,and as the polls show this shit ain't working ,even other democrats are looking for a safe port, and the other networks telling the WH to go fuck themselves about shutting out FOX, is a major embarrassment to this regime, and another example of thuggocracy in decline.

Nbadan

10-23-2009, 08:49 PM

WOW...you can tell hope on dope had his share of GLenn Beckkk today..

A216NiUdQ4E

George Gervin's Afro

10-23-2009, 08:49 PM

You're a facist bitch,and as the polls show this shit ain't working ,even other democrats are looking for a safe port, and the other networks telling the WH to go fuck themselves about shutting out FOX, is a major embarrassment to this regime, and another example of thuggocracy in decline.

and you're ignorant piece of crap:toast

Winehole23

10-23-2009, 09:03 PM

Facist?

hope4dopes

10-23-2009, 09:04 PM

and you're ignorant piece of crap:toast Oh george don't you and perecious get me wrong oh no I love this latest stupid stunt by the WH. This is just going to drive more and more people away from the DNC. I mean the only people who don't have a problem with this ,are the same people that didn't have a problem with

ACORN's pimping
Re. Wright
Louis Farrakhan
Bill Ayers
Van Jones
Mr. Jennings and on and on......keep them coming.

PixelPusher

10-23-2009, 09:17 PM

Facist?
Seig Smile!

Winehole23

10-23-2009, 09:17 PM

What's the connection with Farrakhan? I missed that.

Winehole23

10-23-2009, 09:17 PM

Seig Smile!:rollin

Jacob1983

10-23-2009, 10:39 PM

I'm still curious to know who the MILF with the killer legs was in that video. Hot momma :toast

Winehole23

10-24-2009, 03:08 AM

Ignignokt

10-24-2009, 11:52 PM

As far as I know, micca carries a perfect record: he's never answered a question directly or even indirectly. Never ever. I mean not once.

micca goes straight to meltdown mode and free associates, almost 100% of the time.

I never want to see you utter a sentence making fun of somebody for having a meltdown. The irony of such statement would probably leave one to spill whatever beverage they were drinking through their nose in utter amazement and hilarity! :lmao

Cry Havoc

10-25-2009, 08:48 AM

I never want to see you utter a sentence making fun of somebody for having a meltdown. The irony of such statement would probably leave one to spill whatever beverage they were drinking through their nose in utter amazement and hilarity! :lmao

Do you ever make posts anymore where you aren't attacking others? Cause I actually looked through your "recent posts" list and couldn't find any.

It's cute that you actually have nothing intelligent to say in this forum, and yet you somehow think your opinion is valued or (paid attention to) enough to comment anyway.

Ignignokt

10-25-2009, 09:52 AM

Do you ever make posts anymore where you aren't attacking others? Cause I actually looked through your "recent posts" list and couldn't find any.

It's cute that you actually have nothing intelligent to say in this forum, and yet you somehow think your opinion is valued or (paid attention to) enough to comment anyway.

:lmao, I guess the Calvin and Hobbes comic strip is the standard to bear here!

Cry Havoc

10-25-2009, 11:30 AM

:lmao, I guess the Calvin and Hobbes comic strip is the standard to bear here!

Just to review:

You don't understand posts with humorous intent AND you can't understand the basic description behind polling numbers.

:tu

So, again, do you ever post here where you aren't attacking other people (or actually commenting on the thread topic)?

spursncowboys

10-25-2009, 11:33 AM

Do you ever make posts anymore where you aren't attacking others? Cause I actually looked through your "recent posts" list and couldn't find any.

It's cute that you actually have nothing intelligent to say in this forum, and yet you somehow think your opinion is valued or (paid attention to) enough to comment anyway.
You had quoted the wrong guy. reading what you wrote, you must be talking about Chump, Gervins Afro, Jman, and/or Shasta.

Ignignokt

10-25-2009, 03:15 PM

Just to review:

You don't understand posts with humorous intent AND you can't understand the basic description behind polling numbers.

:tu

So, again, do you ever post here where you aren't attacking other people (or actually commenting on the thread topic)?

I understood that the intent was humor, but doesn't mean it achieved that effect.

Also, do you ever post here where you're not cheerleading for one side while pretending to be a moderate, and then showcasing fake outrage?

hope4dopes

10-25-2009, 03:55 PM

As far as I know, micca carries a perfect record: he's never answered a question directly or even indirectly. Never ever. I mean not once.

micca goes straight to meltdown mode and free associates, almost 100% of the time. And you carry a perfect record of not having an orginal thought, you totally mimic whatever the WH manufactures.anybody who voices dissent is having a racist, swastika carrying meltdown. Like the consent being manufactured by the WH, anyone who questions the authority does so out of some sort of imbalance.Even liberal democrats are questioning this bootheel tactic of alienating those with independent minds being corralled into the popular myth or else.But I suppose the "LEADER" has made such balls up of a mess. this and of course the "it's Bush's fault" mantra is all your left with.

ChumpDumper

10-25-2009, 03:56 PM

micca goes straight to meltdown mode and free associates, almost 100% of the time.
And you carry a perfect record of not having an orginal thought, you totally mimic whatever the WH manufactures.anybody who voices dissent is having a racist, swastika carrying meltdown. Like the consent being manufactured by the WH, anyone who questions the authority does so out of some sort of imbalance.Even liberal democrats are questioning this bootheel tactic of alienating those with independent minds being corralled into the popular myth or else.But I suppose the "LEADER" has made such balls up of a mess. this and of course the "it's Bush's fault" mantra is all your left with.
:lol

George Gervin's Afro

10-25-2009, 04:26 PM

And you carry a perfect record of not having an orginal thought, you totally mimic whatever the WH manufactures.anybody who voices dissent is having a racist, swastika carrying meltdown. Like the consent being manufactured by the WH, anyone who questions the authority does so out of some sort of imbalance.Even liberal democrats are questioning this bootheel tactic of alienating those with independent minds being corralled into the popular myth or else.But I suppose the "LEADER" has made such balls up of a mess. this and of course the "it's Bush's fault" mantra is all your left with.

do you have any idea of how big of an idiot you look like?

Cry Havoc

10-25-2009, 04:57 PM

Also, do you ever post here where you're not cheerleading for one side while pretending to be a moderate, and then showcasing fake outrage?

Not in this forum.

In other forums, I am even viewed as a conservative. It's all relative on the audience.

It's obvious that I appear to be more of a liberal here, because of all the ridiculous stupidity spewed from a large majority of the conservatives here. Again, it merits being stated that we had a thread over 8 pages long of "righties" heavily criticizing Obama over giving the British royalty an iPod. That basically says everything that needs to be known about this forum.

To be honest though, you have a point. I really don't know why I post here anymore, except for the humorous occasion of seeing people own themselves. Other than that, there is very little left redeeming about the political forum. It's kind of sad, really, and what might be worse is that it seems to be mirrored by most of America. I really do wish people could be passionate about politics without resorting to insults or hate, or cheering AGAINST their own country when the opposing party is in office.

Wild Cobra

10-25-2009, 05:42 PM

Not in this forum.

In other forums, I am even viewed as a conservative. It's all relative on the audience.

So you must be one of this forums neocons then?

Ignignokt

10-25-2009, 07:13 PM

Not in this forum.

In other forums, I am even viewed as a conservative. It's all relative on the audience.

It's obvious that I appear to be more of a liberal here, because of all the ridiculous stupidity spewed from a large majority of the conservatives here. Again, it merits being stated that we had a thread over 8 pages long of "righties" heavily criticizing Obama over giving the British royalty an iPod. That basically says everything that needs to be known about this forum.

To be honest though, you have a point. I really don't know why I post here anymore, except for the humorous occasion of seeing people own themselves. Other than that, there is very little left redeeming about the political forum. It's kind of sad, really, and what might be worse is that it seems to be mirrored by most of America. I really do wish people could be passionate about politics without resorting to insults or hate, or cheering AGAINST their own country when the opposing party is in office.

See this? You only complain about it when your team is getting that bad end of the deal, you have no credibility on this issue absolutely. After i posted polling data where democrats wanted Bush to fail in Iraq, you still seem "outraged" that republicans are perceived this way.

This is nothing more than your drama queen antics, you always do the same thing, you whine and complain about this board being beneath you yet you like to engage in the same pointless banter yourself. THis is like the 100th time you've said you're not coming back to this board and you still comeback dramaqueen than ever.

Ignignokt

10-25-2009, 07:14 PM

do you have any idea of how big of an idiot you look like?

if one did, you should be the last person to point that out.:lol