thoughts... administration vs. fox news [Archive]

dave

10-19-2009, 04:49 PM

1. THe black prof vs white cop... he was asked about and gave his opinion, would you prefer that presidents no longer are free to voice their opinion? After all the fuss, he tried to calm things down with a beer...my kind of guy.

2. EVERY OTHER COUNTRY SENT THEIR LEADER! why the fuck wouldn't we? Its part of his job. Why someone would knock him for representing our country on the international stage is beyond me.

3. Fox is no where near a news org... Bravo for him saying it. The Simpsons are more fair and balanced then their "news"
1. it is/was a local issue... keep it that way... at his level of politics, he should have known better...

2. we have NEVER sent a sitting president to lobby for the Olympics, a matter of tradition/proper protocol at this point...

3. I think some one has had too much Flavor-Aide... ;)

Fox is just as much of a news org as MSNBC or CNN IMHO... that being said, i prefer watching the actual wires directly, they don't have stupid opinion shows...

:)

s.p.e.c.t.r.e.

10-19-2009, 04:52 PM

on issue #2, to be fair - Obama was the first US president to take such an active role in lobbying for the Olympics.

sounds like we should be criticizing past presidents for not giving a damn then... if were going to get pissy about it anyway. I dont really care either way, but id be more likely to criticize for not taking action, than trying to make something historical happen. Not to mention it was for his town so im sure he personally would have been excited for the olympics to be in Chi Town.

M.I.J.

10-19-2009, 04:54 PM

well, to be clear - i really don't care if he did or didn't lobby for the Olympics but he was the first and that is all I was saying

dave

10-19-2009, 04:54 PM

Steve

10-19-2009, 04:58 PM

IMO: It was the gitmo closure promise that got him the Nobel........

.... sure wish he'd follow through on that. :o

s.p.e.c.t.r.e.

10-19-2009, 05:00 PM

1. it is/was a local issue... keep it that way... at his level of politics, he should have known better...

2. we have NEVER sent a sitting president to lobby for the Olympics, a matter of tradition/proper protocol at this point...

3. I think some one has had too much Flavor-Aide... ;)

Fox is just as much of a news org as MSNBC or CNN IMHO... that being said, i prefer watching the actual wires directly, they don't have stupid opinion shows...

:)

1 . Hes a human just like the rest of us. Maybe we could grant him the same slack we grant everyone else. Certainly not an issue to spend a week covering on fox news as the "biggest mistake evar!"

2 . So your saying its official US protocal to not get involved in the olympics? If thats the case than im glad he broke protocal. Why should we criticize a president for getting involved in such a great cause? I hated bush, but had he tried to get the olympics in Dallas, i would have been more than cool with that. Beats him spending the day making up reasons to bomb brown people.

3. I go the NPR and internet (yahoo Reuters) route for my news, I dont consider CNBC to be real news for the most part either, but cmon, any monkey with a brain can catch the bias within 5 minutes on fox.

dave

10-19-2009, 05:00 PM

as for the other things, taken by themselves i wouldn't say it's a big deal but he seems to jump in at the wrong time or for the wrong reason.

i agree, and it just seems so very very odd to me....

M.I.J.

10-19-2009, 05:02 PM

IMO: It was the gitmo closure promise that got him the Nobel........

.... sure wish he'd follow through on that. :o

whelp, its getting closer. They passed that vote last week in congress saying detainees will be tried here on US soil instead of there

s.p.e.c.t.r.e.

10-19-2009, 05:05 PM

you don't think he had anything more pressing issue to tend to? not even a little bit? really?
perhaps the other (past) presidents were actually tending to more pressing national concerns, maybe?

i bet you think he deserved the Nobel Peace prize as a result of what he had done in his first 10 days of office too, right?

;)

to your first pont... if the pres cant take a half day for things other than war and the economy then were fucked. At least he didnt spend all day staging a mission accomplished rally. its been 6 years...mission still not quite acomplished. Is that really the best thing you can criticize him on? going to bat for Chicago (and America) . If so, im sorry.

As for the nobel, well, I wouldnt have given it to him, but he has done immeasurable good for peace in the world. You righties come off like total dicks picking at bones crying over that shit. Im amazed how much you all hate America all of a sudden ;) <~~~~~~ ;););)

Steve

10-19-2009, 05:07 PM

whelp, its getting closer. They passed that vote last week in congress saying detainees will be tried here on US soil instead of there
Yeah.. but he could've railroaded this shit through after Franken was confirmed. Still happy that it's a focal point.

dave

10-19-2009, 05:08 PM

btw, regardless of what you all here keep posting/assuming, i'm not a 'righty' per say.... :P

Steve

10-19-2009, 05:09 PM

You're a right-leaning independant, no?

M.I.J.

10-19-2009, 05:09 PM

damn teabagger! ;)

(DJ)Elroy

10-19-2009, 05:10 PM

3. I go the NPR and internet (yahoo Reuters) route for my news, I dont consider CNBC to be real news for the most part either, but cmon, any monkey with a brain can catch the bias within 5 minutes on fox.

Any anone paying attention can catch the spin on NPR... :der:

I'll admit Fox has a right-spin, but CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC, etc all have a nice left spin. It seems the only peple that don't notice are those that lean the same way.

dave

10-19-2009, 05:12 PM

IMO: It was the gitmo closure promise that got him the Nobel........

.... sure wish he'd follow through on that. :o

woo hoo, lets let some multinational 'suspects' into the US.... that's a great idea....
what do we do with the ones that no country wants? give them a bankrupcy house the govt banks own for his/her troubles?

You're a right-leaning independant, no?

damn teabagger! ;)

i'm not saying.... but will say that i can piss off almost anyone in a given room if given enough time to 'share ideals'

:peace:

s.p.e.c.t.r.e.

10-19-2009, 05:18 PM

btw, regardless of what you all here keep posting/assuming, i'm not a 'righty' per say.... :P

my bad, dont mean to paint you in a corner, just arguing for my man. I obviously voted for him. I dont think hes god, but man is it refreshing to have a president that is rational and obviously intelligent, and for the first time in my adult life, I trust our presidents intentions. He not perfect, hes made plenty of mistakes, but in general Im really happy with the guy. Given the circumstances hes doing superb IMO. Now congress on the other hand...wtf do these guys get paid for? Feels like a bunch of posturing and backdoor business as usual despite all the "change" rhetoric to me. It makes me livid that we're selling out a good health plan for literally 1 republican vote, esp when the republicans dont really want to defeat healthcare reform, they just want to make Big O look bad. If he gets the reforms passed he'll be a legitimately historical president (and by that i mean he wont just be the 1st black pres, but someone whos reforms made a historical impact). I seriously believe the repubs care more about making Obama look bad then they do about fixing the problems our country faces. And the Dems in congress for the most part dont seem to know what the hell to do with their majority and prob wont have one for long.

s.p.e.c.t.r.e.

10-19-2009, 05:21 PM

woo hoo, lets let some multinational 'suspects' into the US.... that's a great idea....
what do we do with the ones that no country wants? give them a bankrupcy house the govt banks own for his/her troubles?

my response to this argument is...what country should take McVeigh or the Unibomber? Why is it so much more dangerous that these terrorists are brown and not rednecks? Do they posses special powers that make Ft Levenworth less secure or something? just checking ;)

Not too mention its totally American to hold "suspects" indefinitely w/o charging them with a crime or giving them a fair trial.

dave

10-19-2009, 05:23 PM

....is it refreshing to have a president that is rational and obviously intelligent, and for the first time in my adult life, I trust our presidents intentions. .....

i tend to agree that I like him as a seemingly intelligent, national political figure... however, I can not make the leap to say I can 'trust'

i'm kinda defective in this area....

that being said, our system runs slow and deliberate by design... they are not supposed to be able to railroad things through...

have you seen details on the healthcare plan being offered? I can't say i'm impressed with what i've seen thus far.... i don't generally like to pay for something for 10 years, when i can only get to use it for 5... especially when no other actual mechanics are included in the legislation.... that legislation stuff is generally pretty well spelled out;reesponsible agencies, funding, mechanics, oversight, etc.... i haven't seen that llevel of detail being documented and discussed

on a related note, I honestly believe that the reform shoudl be in a large number of smaller bills, that way it's much easier to disect for the general public, executive agencies, and media...

dave

10-19-2009, 05:25 PM

my response to this argument is...what country should take McVeigh or the Unibomber? Why is it so much more dangerous that these terrorists are brown and not rednecks? Do they posses special powers that make Ft Levenworth less secure or something? just checking ;)

the local american born ones were here already.... and personally, i don;t think they should still be living....

give them to the victims' families IMHO

jCole

10-19-2009, 05:27 PM

but man is it refreshing to have a president that is rational and obviously intelligent

I'm interested in the examples, in which you use, to come to a conclusion about him being "obviously intelligent" and also which standard/circumstance/example you are using, to measure this against.

Not a bait, but a genuine question and just looking for your insight.

s.p.e.c.t.r.e.

10-19-2009, 05:29 PM

i tend to agree that I like him as an intelligent, national political figure... however, I can not make the leap to say I can 'trust'

i'm kinda defective in this area....

that being said, our system runs slow and deliberate by design... they are not supposed to be able to railroad things through...

have you seen details on the healthcare plan being offered? I can't say i'm impressed with what i've seen thus far.... i don't generally like to pay for something for 10 years, when i can only get to use it for 5...

Ill put it this way, I like Obama's gudielines for what the reform should accomplish, mainly expanding coverage to everyone and lowing overall costs. But back to congress being retarded, every week they dilute it more and even their original plan was way off track. One criticism i do have of Obama, is he should have written the bill he supports rather than telling congress to fight it out and send him one he will sign. Congress will make a mess of everything they touch at this point i think. I was SOOOOO excited about the 60 seat majority, and now, im just appalled at their inability to do anything with it.

And i still dont trust "the gubment" or necessarily everything that Obama says. But i do trust his intentions to make positive changes and I think he genuinely believes in most of the rhetoric he spews, but he cant just make everything he wants a reality all on his own, and thats where his troubles have been.

s.p.e.c.t.r.e.

10-19-2009, 05:39 PM

I'm interested in the examples, in which you use, to come to a conclusion about him being "obviously intelligent" and also which standard/circumstance/example you are using, to measure this against.

Not a bait, but a genuine question and just looking for your insight.

well, he was born in near poverty and made his way thru shit...was it yale? ivy league smart people school whatever it was, not to mention he speaks in complete sentences and doesnt sound like a guy opening for larry the cable guy. I guess its not obvious to you based on the question you've asked. Hes well mannered coherent, his arguments have a basis in facts and research for the most part. He can logically explain why he believes in what he does with out avoiding the question (not that he never avoids questions, but in politics thats inevitable). But basically listen to the guy speak, and then pull up some Bush or Clinton reruns and it should be pretty apparent. There were so many days where i was left wondering if Bush even understood the words he was trying to read that i concluded the guy is barely in the normal IQ range.

dave

10-19-2009, 05:50 PM

well, he was born in near poverty and made his way thru shit...was it yale? ivy league smart people school whatever it was, not to mention he speaks in complete sentences and doesnt sound like a guy opening for larry the cable guy. I guess its not obvious to you based on the question you've asked. Hes well mannered coherent, his arguments have a basis in facts and research for the most part. He can logically explain why he believes in what he does with out avoiding the question (not that he never avoids questions, but in politics thats inevitable). But basically listen to the guy speak, and then pull up some Bush or Clinton reruns and it should be pretty apparent. There were so many days where i was left wondering if Bush even understood the words he was trying to read that i concluded the guy is barely in the normal IQ range. this post is not helping your cause IMHO

:wacko:

;)

s.p.e.c.t.r.e.

10-19-2009, 05:50 PM

the local american born ones were here already.... and personally, i don;t think they should still be living....

give them to the victims' families IMHO

Id rather have em here where we have a very secure and regulated prison system then in some 3rd world country where they aren't under our close supervision anymore. That is if they're even guilty of anything to begin with.
I think that whole argument was just another attempt by the right to oppose Obama and try to make him look bad on what is really a non issue. The logical and rational solution was to not circumvent over 200 years of American policy and put them on trial like any other murderous criminals in our nations history.

<sigh> dammit i really wanted to not have a political forum on this site, but fuck, i just cant help but get in on it. we might as well just have a political forum so i can debate shit with people again :P</sigh>

s.p.e.c.t.r.e.

10-19-2009, 05:53 PM

this post is not helping your cause IMHO

:wacko:

;)

whats my cause? that the guy isnt a dummy? the fact i have to argue that point is hilarious.

dave

10-19-2009, 06:02 PM

whats my cause? that the guy isnt a dummy? the fact i have to argue that point is hilarious.
as another poster has already posted, he does seem to jump in the wrong things at the wrong time.... given the amount of advisors he has chirping in his ear, and his continued propensity to insert himself in precarious political situations lends credence to the idea, that in spite of his intellect, he may in fact be "a dummy," in certain respects.... IMO at least....

i don't really care, the top guy isn't really in charge IMHO

s.p.e.c.t.r.e.

10-19-2009, 06:11 PM

as another poster has already posted, he does seem to jump in the wrong things at the wrong time.... given the amount of advisors he has chirping in his ear, and his continued propensity to insert himself in precarious political situations lends credence to the idea, that in spite of his intellect, he may in fact be "a dummy," in certain respects....

So he should have known that making an offhand comment about a trivial arrest would turn into a full blown "____-gate"? whatever, hes human. Im sure weve both made snap judgements when posed with what seemed to be a rather trivial question. The guys not perfect... If im going to criticize anyone on that whole story itd be the media for turning it into a week long story (esp when there are so many other things to focus on...right? ;) ). You asked earlier, doesn't he have more important things to be doing? well, if the repubs feels that way, then why bog him down with pointless drivel like his gut reaction to his friend being arrested in his living room for apparently being black (thats another debate, but at the time he made his comments that was the headline).

You're an intelligent person (obviously) ;) but I would put good money down that you've made plenty of mistakes too. I guess you're not intelligent anymore if thats the case...

edit: dont mean that as an insult to your intelligence at all, i mean it when i say you're obviously intelligent. didnt want you to misconstrue that :)

Sargasm

10-19-2009, 09:14 PM

that being said, i prefer watching the actual wires directly, they don't have stupid opinion shows...

Can I have your drug contact?

Cause srsly you must be HIIIIIIIGH.

[edit]Oh wait NM... I thought you were talking about fox.

I don't reed good.

Thanks, no child left behind!

jCole

10-20-2009, 08:38 AM

Brandon

10-20-2009, 09:18 AM

1- Who cares? Fox isn't news, it's commentary with some sprinkels of reality.
2- Are TMZ or the Onion in the 'press corp', asking questions at press conferences? They sure aren't.. and that's the same caliber of journalism of Fox.

dave

10-20-2009, 09:20 AM

You're an intelligent person (obviously) ;) but I would put good money down that you've made plenty of mistakes too. I guess you're not intelligent anymore if thats the case...

I agree, i've made plenty, and will likely continue to do so...

the thing is, i don't have a handful of advisors clueing me in to most every potential situation.... and I am not in a postion where every comment i make is evaluated to the Nth degree either...

we are obviously in very different stations in society/life...
and one should take all that kind of stuff into consideration, IMHO

ya' know?

Soleil

10-20-2009, 09:22 AM

Fox does news?

(DJ)Elroy

10-20-2009, 09:57 AM

dave

10-20-2009, 10:03 AM

Brandon

10-20-2009, 10:05 AM

And why is the liberal bias of the other networks acceptable?
Mainly because the 'liberal bias' doesn't amount to the level of lies and audience deception that the conservative bias does.

dave

10-20-2009, 10:07 AM

Mainly because the 'liberal bias' doesn't amount to the level of lies and audience deception that the conservative bias does.

seems to me to be a matter of perspective, correct?

Brandon

10-20-2009, 10:10 AM

No, I think it's a pretty-well documented fact by various organizations. If Fox News says 'the sky is red', that's not perspective, that's a documented fallacy. Groups like MediaMatters, though they claim to focus on conservative lies, point out all the fallacies in news... their numbers tell the tale.

dave

10-20-2009, 10:18 AM

MediaMatters

i'll see your MediaMatters, and raise you a Media Research Center...

http://www.mrc.org/public/default.aspx

ya' know? like i said, a matter of perspective and framing.....
;)

what's a fact or history, for that matter? the winner's version?

(DJ)Elroy

10-20-2009, 10:34 AM

Mainly because the 'liberal bias' doesn't amount to the level of lies and audience deception that the conservative bias does.

If you don't see it you're not paying attention. ;)

seems to me to be a matter of perspective, correct?

Bingo.

Brandon

10-20-2009, 10:35 AM

True, but when we weigh and balance the two... which one finds more offenses? Clearly, the 'bias' that's more offensive (or maybe less subtle?) is that of the conservative. I'm not saying there isn't a liberal bias... but the complete fabrication of facts and continued broadcast of fallacies is moreso prevelent by conservative outlets (one has to look no further than Hannity to get my point. He continues to spew false statements, even when he's told he's incorrect and his peers have stopped saying said facts).

dave

10-20-2009, 10:41 AM

Brandon

10-20-2009, 10:47 AM

Ahh... but when Fox News is 50% news personalities and they're presenting current events as 'news', you and I can tell the difference, but the average American is too daft to know that it's opinion and not fact.

the drizzle

10-20-2009, 12:00 PM

watch fox news tonight. they will sit there and offer critiques on anything --- like peoples personal tastes , even going so far as to intimate what they would or wouldnt do in a situation...

fox news is very very subjective and cant be taken seriously.

fucking ron zappolo. are you kidding me? what a fucking tool.

he and the other "talking heads" there are goddamn awful.

Sargasm

10-20-2009, 06:52 PM

I agree with you for the most part, Dave.
But you're wasting your time trying to convince some of these people. They will find a way to justify whatever Obama does, no matter how far they have to stretch.

And why is the liberal bias of the other networks acceptable?

Maybe that's because Obama is actually a good leader focused on improving life for Americans?

Bush was a liar. Straight up. His tax cuts were by far in favor of the rich, his Medicare legislation benefited only pharmaceutical companies, his war was a lie that was fabricated because of a combination of a vendetta and the realization of a radical political ideology.

That said, I am actually finding that conservatives are coming up with some REAL subject matter to address these days. I think for the last 8 years, by and large, Fox News and the right wing pundits have poisoned popular culture by perpetuating the lies of a crooked administration.

Conservative culture, having found itself as the opposition party, must come up with a better strategy than make Obama fail. Which is a good thing, because I think conservatism at its base is a quality political ideology.

The bias of Fox News is NOT comparable to the so-called liberal bias in the rest of the media. Case in point, the 'liberal bias' is a term perpetuated by republican ideologues.

Liberal bias is a fantasy term perpetuated by Fox News to undermine (effectively, mind you) the credibility of all legitimate news sources.

Let me remind you that the New York Times was one of the key perpetrators of the myth of Iraqi involvement in 911. The 'liberal media' perpetuated all the lies of the Bush administration and once they did THEIR JOBS AS NEWSMAKERS and questioned the administration for their decision making, they were described as having that oft mentioned liberal bias.

It's a scarecrow argument perpetuated by ideologues to maintain a myth that all media hates business and conservative ideology. Plain and simple.

I can admit that Keith Olbermann and other reporters on MSNBC have a liberal bias, but they aren't presented as newsmakers. They are talking heads.

Fox News, on the contrary, presents opinion as fact. They misconstrue information and provide lies and falsehoods to support the Republican party and they dress it up as news.

It is corporate fascism at its best. A company profiting from the defense of a political party and mascarading as a quality news source.

If you can't see this, you're misguided.

I DARE you to go here http://mediamatters.org/ and make an honest attempt to understand our perspective.

The plain and simple truth though is that no other news sources so deliberately alter reality and fail to fact check as Fox News does from within their news programs.

Sargasm

10-20-2009, 07:06 PM

Let me say one additional thing...

Fox News has ruined the Republican party. Glen Beck's Tea Partyers are destroying the ability of conservatives to provide candidates. The attachment to a socially conservative and furthermore REPUGNANT ideologies rooted in hatred has divided an already weakened party and will only result in another humiliating election.

A fitting consequence for riling up bigoted ideals for profit.

Sargasm

10-20-2009, 07:12 PM

Here is a link to falsehoods being spread by fox.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRx5ethd8JU

dave

10-21-2009, 08:45 AM

I DARE you to go here http://mediamatters.org/ and make an honest attempt to understand our perspective.

The plain and simple truth though is that no other news sources so deliberately alter reality and fail to fact check as Fox News does from within their news programs.

once again; I'll see your MediaMatters, and raise you a MRC.org.....

http://www.mrc.org/public/default.aspx (http://www.mrc.org/public/default.aspx)

basically, it's a two way street IMHO; and both sides have blood on their hands...

Brandon

10-21-2009, 08:46 AM

Fox News has ruined the Republican party.
I dunno man... I think the GOP does a pretty good job of destroying themselves.

Sargasm

10-21-2009, 06:44 PM

once again; I'll see your MediaMatters, and raise you a MRC.org.....

http://www.mrc.org/public/default.aspx (http://www.mrc.org/public/default.aspx)

basically, it's a two way street IMHO; and both sides have blood on their hands...

Ok, I checked it out. Did you check out the video I posted?

So just to be totally clear. The difference between your mrc and my mediamatters is that mrc is touting news stories that are FACT BASED but not positive for republicans.

Example: http://www.mrc.org/biasalert/2009/20091019085512.aspx

MRC is criticizing ABC for posting poll results. The use of facts such as the following:

“the President has a 57 percent approval rating, his rating rising for the first time since April. And only 20 percent of the country now consider themselves Republican. That is the lowest level of support in 26 years."

I'll show you the facts:

his rating rising for the first time since April.
only 20 percent of the country now consider themselves Republican.
That is the lowest level of support in 26 years.

Those are facts, as defined by wikipedia here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact. To quote: "A fact is a pragmatic truth, a statement that can, at least in theory, be checked and confirmed."

Can those facts be checked? Is it the first time his approval is rising since April? Yes it is, according to polls. So that is a fact. As are the others.

This is also known as objectivity. It is a quality that media is supposed to have. Observing the existence of a fact is NOT INHERENTLY LIBERAL.

The video from mediamatters is talking about misinformation. Not facts that are unfriendly to Obama.

Have you watched videos of Obama's question and answer sessions? The 'liberal media' is pretty fucking hard on him. It isn't just FoxNews that asks tough questions. It's only Fox News that misconstrues them or presents opinion as news.

So... No Mrc is not similar to mediamatters because they are opposed to media REPORTING. Mediamatters is opposed to media LYING.

kthxbye

Brandon

10-22-2009, 07:02 AM

And I think that's the issue I take with the 'conservative' versions of organizations like MediaMatters... they don't call out lies and inconsistencies, they distort facts to make someone seem incorrect, to fit their agenda.
Same with Think Progress... sure, they get a litttle preachy with their posts, but they check the thing they are commenting on against numerous sources and facts; I just don't see that in sites like MRC.

dave

10-22-2009, 09:13 AM

Ok, I checked it out. Did you check out the video I posted?

So just to be totally clear. The difference between your mrc and my mediamatters is that mrc is touting news stories that are FACT BASED but not positive for republicans.

fact based according to whom? the pollsters?

honestly, who cares about polls...
ever read a book called 'how to lie with statistics'
:nerd:
polls can fall in that category, my friend....

Sargasm

10-22-2009, 10:33 AM

fact based according to whom? the pollsters?

honestly, who cares about polls...
ever read a book called 'how to lie with statistics'
:nerd:
polls can fall in that category, my friend....

Unless they're in your favor right?

Conservatives have been all too happy to point out the polls in the last few months when health care was stalling in senate.

Polls are SCIENTIFIC.

Let's check wikipedia for the definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Quoted here: "To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning"

IE: You can go RESEARCH that poll. You can check their methods and confirm their statistics. Polls abide by a set of outside parameters.

Just because it shows you are wrong, doesn't mean it's liberal.

It just means you're wrong.

Brandon

10-22-2009, 10:35 AM

Polls are SCIENTIFIC.

ooo I dunno about that. If I randomly call homes, I'm still only calling people that have landlines; there's a fair percentage of people that can't afford one or don't use a landline. If I poll outside a store somewhere, I'm still choosing the person I ask; that can lead to a discriminating skew on the numbers.

dave

10-22-2009, 11:00 AM

It just means you're wrong.

no, it means we'll have to agree to disagree; then...

:love:

dave

10-22-2009, 11:02 AM

Conservatives have been all too happy to point out the polls in the last few months when health care was stalling in senate.

Polls are SCIENTIFIC.

and for the record, i very rarely pay attention to any of the polls,
from either or any camp, b/c i believe them to generally be shite...

:tinfoil3:

verbal138

10-22-2009, 09:34 PM

so i guess most of you all have heard of the flack going on now b/t the administration and fox news...
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2009/10/19/2009-10-19_bam_team_again_rips_fox_news_but_says_aides_wil l_appear_on_shows.html

i am sure google can pull up tons of hits also....

thoughts?

my generalized opinion is that the white house sure seems to be commenting on a bunch of stuff that really, they shouldn't be commenting on or intervening in at all....

like:
that flack with the black professor and white cop...
the lobbying for the Olympics...
this fox news is not really news stance....

:ohwell:

also, did i hear it right, is the administration talking about yet another 'stimulus' package, even though they don't want it referred to as such?

Here's the thing, this is only going to end badly for Obama. Before getting into the clear attempt to suppress free press (and the fact that Obama admin is looking a lot like the Nixon administration on this issue)... looking at it from a purely political gamesmanship standpoint, you're giving your biggest critic a HUGE boost and driving individuals to see what they have to say. They hear the president attacking a news organization and the middle of the road person is going to have their interest peaked... why is the president saying this? So they tune in. If you look at Fox's ratings they've skyrocketed under Obama. How is this helping him? It's not.

Now on to the dirtier shit about this... here you have a president of the united states trying to annoint himself the master decider of what organization is and is not "real news". His people actually had the nerve to tell other news organizations how they should treat Fox. This is a direct assualt on free speech and a free press. He's also proving to be a blatant hypocrite. Here he sits and says that Fox pushes a perspective, so they're not a news organization... but he gives unfettered access to the NY Times, MSNBC, and the Huffington Post. If Fox isn't news, neither are any of those organizations.

verbal138

10-22-2009, 09:41 PM

Here's what intellectually honest journalists are saying about this:

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 –

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.

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

Tapper by the way should be given his own sunday morning show, this guy is really the only one I've seen ask questions in a Tim Russert manner. He has caught the Obama administration in numerous lies, half truth, and absurd statements already, just 9 months in.

Obama's dumb war with Fox News

   http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2006/04/20/GR2006042001448.gif
There’s only one thing dumber than picking a fight with people who buy ink by the barrel -- picking a fight with people who don’t even have to buy ink. The Obama administration’s war on Fox News is dumb on multiple levels. It makes the White House look weak, unable to take Harry Truman’s advice and just deal with the heat. It makes the White House look small, dragged down to the level of Glenn Beck. It makes the White House look childish and petty at best, and it has a distinct Nixonian -- Agnewesque? -- aroma at worst. It is a self-defeating trifecta: it distracts attention from the Obama administration’s substantive message; it serves to help Fox, not punish it, by driving up ratings; and it deprives the White House, to the extent it refuses to provide administration officials to appear on the cable network, of access to an audience that is, in fact, broader than hard-core Obama haters.
Sure, it’s legitimate -- and standard practice -- to dispense access and coveted interviews to favored reporters and news outlets. So is subtly doing the opposite: letting a reporter who’s filed a tough story know that he or she is in the doghouse by leaking a scoop to a competitor. The Bush administration routinely briefed conservative columnists before a big presidential speech; the Obama White House tends to call in ideological sympathizers. This is the way the game is played.

Where the White House has gone way overboard is in its decision to treat Fox as an outright enemy and to go public with the assault. Imagine the outcry if the Bush administration had pulled a similar hissy fit with MSNBC. “Opinion journalism masquerading as news,” White House communications director Anita Dunn declared of Fox. Certainly Fox tends to report its news with a conservative slant -- but has anyone at the White House clicked over to MSNBC recently? Or is the only problem opinion journalism that doesn’t match its opinion? On "Fox News Sunday," host Chris Wallace replayed (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,568543,00.html) a quote from an Obama interview (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/02/03/transcript-chris-wallace-interviews-president-obama/): “I don't always get my most favorable coverage on Fox, but I think that's part of how democracy is supposed to work. You know, we're not supposed to all be in lock step here.”
Maybe he should tell the rest of the team.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2009/10/obamas_dumb_war_with_fox_news.html

verbal138

10-22-2009, 09:47 PM

sounds like we should be criticizing past presidents for not giving a damn then... if were going to get pissy about it anyway. I dont really care either way, but id be more likely to criticize for not taking action, than trying to make something historical happen. Not to mention it was for his town so im sure he personally would have been excited for the olympics to be in Chi Town.

Are you kidding me? Something historical happen? Getting the olympics is something historical? You do realize they're every 4 years right? Obama went personally because he's such an egomaniac that he thought he could fly over there, talk about himself, his historic election, and they would give him the Olympics so he could (hopefully) use it as crown acheivement to cap of his second term. Listen to his pitch to the committee... it was 60% about HIM!

Meanwhile, he had previously been at the UN security counsel meeting. At the time we had definitive proof Iran had lied to the international community and was building a secret nuclear facility. Sarkozy was ready to use this huge forum to expose Iran and demand sanctions, what does Obama do? He prevents Sarkozy from doing so and doesn't even bring it up himself, why? Because HE wanted to wax on and on and on about HIS vision for a nuclear free world and didn't want any small inconsequential items (like Iran building a secret nuclear facility) to trump HIS press about HIS grand vision. Oh... and he wanted to rush off to give a presentation on why he is great and should be given the olympics.

Sargasm

10-22-2009, 11:21 PM

Here's the thing, this is only going to end badly for Obama. Before getting into the clear attempt to suppress free press (and the fact that Obama admin is looking a lot like the Nixon administration on this issue)... looking at it from a purely political gamesmanship standpoint, you're giving your biggest critic a HUGE boost and driving individuals to see what they have to say. They hear the president attacking a news organization and the middle of the road person is going to have their interest peaked... why is the president saying this? So they tune in. If you look at Fox's ratings they've skyrocketed under Obama. How is this helping him? It's not.

Now on to the dirtier shit about this... here you have a president of the united states trying to annoint himself the master decider of what organization is and is not "real news". His people actually had the nerve to tell other news organizations how they should treat Fox. This is a direct assualt on free speech and a free press. He's also proving to be a blatant hypocrite. Here he sits and says that Fox pushes a perspective, so they're not a news organization... but he gives unfettered access to the NY Times, MSNBC, and the Huffington Post. If Fox isn't news, neither are any of those organizations.

Are you a moron?

Have you read history?

Do you know about nixon.

What is clear to me is that you heard this Nixonesque bullshit from Fox News or some right leaning pundit.

You didn't form your own opinion.

Sargasm

10-22-2009, 11:23 PM

Here's what intellectually honest journalists are saying about this:

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

Tapper by the way should be given his own sunday morning show, this guy is really the only one I've seen ask questions in a Tim Russert manner. He has caught the Obama administration in numerous lies, half truth, and absurd statements already, just 9 months in.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2009/10/obamas_dumb_war_with_fox_news.html

Hey JACKASS.

This chick is a right wing pundit. Not a reporter.

Quoting someone else's opinion as fact is precisely what makes Fox News not news...

Get some facts. Not opinions.

Use those.

verbal138

10-22-2009, 11:48 PM

Are you a moron?

Have you read history?

Do you know about nixon.

What is clear to me is that you heard this Nixonesque bullshit from Fox News or some right leaning pundit.

You didn't form your own opinion.

Haha.. great, just what I was looking for an easy target.

Yes, actually I've "read history" and Obama's cronies attacking Fox News smacks of Spiro Ragnew's attacks of the media during the Nixon administration. Quick, google his name so you understand who I'm talking about. We haven't seen the level of vitrol towards a news organization since good ol' Ragnew, and that's why the comparison is perfect. You clearly don't understand anything about "history" and maybe should try "reading it" sometime. lol

...and dumbass, I don't watch Fox news. Don't really watch any television news anymore, it's all trash, but please continue making up nonsense... it makes you an easy target.

Sargasm

10-22-2009, 11:58 PM

Haha.. great, just what I was looking for an easy target.

Yes, actually I've "read history" and Obama's cronies attacking Fox News smacks of Spiro Ragnew's attacks of the media during the Nixon administration. Quick, google his name so you understand who I'm talking about. We haven't seen the level of vitrol towards a news organization since good ol' Ragnew, and that's why the comparison is perfect. You clearly don't understand anything about "history" and maybe should try "reading it" sometime. lol

...and dumbass, I don't watch Fox news. Don't really watch any television news anymore, it's all trash, but please continue making up nonsense... it makes you an easy target.

No it isn't the same.

Actually do me one better. Explain to me how they are similar.

Because while I know what you're talking about. I don't see any similarities except:

1) They were both president.

2) Uhm... they both disliked someone in the media.

Besides that... Obama doesn't have a list as far as anyone can tell... if you like facts he SHOULD have a list that can be stated to have a similar purpose as Nixon's enemies list.

It seems to me that the greatest correlation is that they both were in politics and had adversaries.

OBAMA IS LIKE HITLER! Hitler had that SS and that's like Obama's cabnet because we call them Czars! Oh wait... czars are russian. SO HE'S LIKE STALIN! No wait, he's like bush, he's exactly the same. Bush didn't like people. He didn't call on MSNBC...

You're a moron.

[edit] p.s. YOU DON'T READ GOOD. I said Fox News or some right leaning pundit. If you want to give me a little more wiggle room, that could mean right leaning blog.

Regardless, you didn't come to the conclusion on your own, you stole it off some website and thought it made you sound smart.

It didn't work.

Sargasm

10-23-2009, 12:01 AM

verbal138

10-23-2009, 12:11 AM

Hey JACKASS.

This chick is a right wing pundit. Not a reporter.

Quoting someone else's opinion as fact is precisely what makes Fox News not news...

Get some facts. Not opinions.

Use those.

Haha... this is great. Thanks for so quickly proving your in way over y'our head - that has to be some kind of record. Ruth Marcus is no right wing pundit, only a completely ignorant JACKASS would claim as much. Ruth Marcus is a well established moderate, her op-ed appears in wash posts "post-parisan" section. Now, someone as clearly as uneducated as you wouldn't know this, but that is where they put the moderate viewpoints. The washington post also has a well established liberal tilt and Marcus has been with them for decades. Bottom line... you're wrong, painfully wrong.

To really drive the point home, because I understand I'm dealing with a pretty low common denominator type here, let's check in with some of the things she's said:

Fear Mongering over Abortion:

Item: House Minority Leader John Boehner asserts that House Democrats' health bill "will result in federally mandated coverage of abortion on demand in virtually all of America's health plans," making it "illegal for health-care providers nationwide -- even Catholic and religious-based hospitals . . . -- to provide anything less than abortion on demand for anyone who seeks it."

You're going to be hearing more of the same. Don't believe it. These inflammatory statements do a disservice to a complex issue of public policy: how, in the context of health reform, to balance the deeply felt views of both sides in the abortion debate.
I am firmly in the camp of those who think the abortion decision should be left up to the woman. But I respect those who fervently believe that abortion is the taking of human life, so I am sensitive to concerns that their tax dollars not be used to pay for the procedure.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/08/AR2009090802960.html?nav=emailpage

Sotomayor the Radical Who Isn't

If Sonia Sotomayor is a radical activist eager to push the law leftward or to rule according to personal whims rather than constitutional commands, she's done an impressive job of hiding it all these years.

The amazing thing about the case against Sotomayor is how thin it is. The now-famous 32 words (http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2009/05/26_sotomayor.shtml) about a wise Latina judge. Her vote -- part of a unanimous three-judge panel -- against white firefighters denied promotions. The YouTube comment about judges making policy. And not much else.

This is a woman with more years on the bench than any Supreme Court nominee in the past 100 years. During that time, you'd think even the most middle-of-the-road judge would have provided some unintentional ammunition for critics -- maybe freeing an especially unsavory criminal on a supposed technicality. If Sotomayor is the judicial radical of conservative imaginings, certainly there ought to be something more in her paper trail.

Except there isn't -- at least from what's known so far. An examination of Sotomayor's decisions shows a careful judge who tends to rule for the government over criminal defendants; who has been skeptical of most civil rights claims that have come before her; and who, to the extent that she has ruled on cases that touch on abortion, has come down against the abortion-rights side. She's not apt to be David Souter (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/video/2009/05/01/VI2009050102082.html) in reverse -- a Democratic pick who turns out to be a closet conservative. But there's no evidence that she will be outside the liberal mainstream on the current court.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/02/AR2009060202969.html?nav=emailpage

Pyrrhic Torture Trials

Should Bush administration officials be put on trial for crimes such as authorizing torture?

Personally, I'm just relieved to have this crowd heading out of office and its policies -- on torture, on indefinite detention, on warrantless wiretapping, on overweening executive power -- soon to be inoperative.

But the imminent arrival of the Obama administration has sparked a renewed clamor for criminal investigation and prosecution in some quarters on the left. Vice President Cheney stoked the flames with an ABC interview in which he was typically unrepentant about the waterboarding of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and particularly explicit about his own involvement.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/30/AR2008123002396.html?nav=emailpage

Does that sound like a right wing pundit to you JACKASS???? Is Jake Tapper? Let's be honest for a second here, nobody in their right mind would think Marcus is a right wing pundit if they knew who she was and had read her work. So why don't you do yourself a favor and admit you're an ignorant fool who just assumes anyone who criticizes obama is automatically a right wing pundit? It'll save us all a lot of time.

Sargasm

10-23-2009, 12:13 AM

Haha... this is great. Thanks for so quickly proving your in way over y'our head - that has to be some kind of record. Ruth Marcus is no right wing pundit, only a completely ignorant JACKASS would claim as much. Ruth Marcus is a well established moderate, her op-ed appears in wash posts "post-parisan" section. Now, someone as clearly as uneducated as you wouldn't know this, but that is where they put the moderate viewpoints. The washington post also has a well established liberal tilt and Marcus has been with them for decades. Bottom line... you're wrong, painfully wrong.

To really drive the point home, because I understand I'm dealing with a pretty low common denominator type here, let's check in with some of the things she's said:

Fear Mongering over Abortion:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/08/AR2009090802960.html?nav=emailpage

Sotomayor the Radical Who Isn't

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/02/AR2009060202969.html?nav=emailpage

Pyrrhic Torture Trials

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/30/AR2008123002396.html?nav=emailpage

Does that sound like a right wing pundit to you JACKASS???? Is Jake Tapper? Let's be honest for a second here, nobody in their right mind would think Marcus is a right wing pundit if they knew who she was and had read her work. So why don't you do yourself a favor and admit you're an ignorant fool who just assumes anyone who criticizes obama is automatically a right wing pundit? It'll save us all a lot of time.

Ok fine, I was wrong.

I read her article and response and she sounded off her nut.

But good work on the research. I am wrong.

Obama still isn't nixon. You still didn't come up with your own opinions and you're still wrong.

verbal138

10-23-2009, 12:20 AM

I defer to my previous posts though.

Go do some research.

Go to www.mediamatters.org (http://www.mediamatters.org) and see what it is all about. I think Obama's people are right on for saying what should be said.

It isn't news. It's propaganda.

I haven't bothered to read your previous posts yet, maybe I'll get to them tomorrow.... but you just discredited yourself by citing mediamatters.org. mediamatters is a hardcore left propaganda tool, they are no different than the glenn becks and limbaughs of the world. They make horrible and intellectually dishonest "points" and they only present a skewed set of facts so it appears their "points" are backed up. It's pretty laughable you're accusing me of being some propaganda consuming fox viewer and you out yourself as a blogoshpher liberal propaganda consumer. Nice.

Sargasm

10-23-2009, 12:23 AM

I haven't bothered to read your previous posts yet, maybe I'll get to them tomorrow.... but you just discredited yourself by citing mediamatters.org. mediamatters is a hardcore left propaganda tool, they are no different than the glenn becks and limbaughs of the world. They make horrible and intellectually dishonest "points" and they only present a skewed set of facts so it appears their "points" are backed up. It's pretty laughable you're accusing me of being some propaganda consuming fox viewer and you out yourself as a blogoshpher liberal propaganda consumer. Nice.

Have you gone to mediamatters? Have you watched the videos?

They cite sources, use facts and replay them to make points. It's quite nice.

It isn't about opinion strictly... it's about research. Here, i'll help you out, since you're probably not trying to be wrong so much.

http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DY DR47EKTrCQ

Go watch that. See, while yes mediamatters is a 'liberal' organization, rather than misconstrue facts, they back up postulations with factual representation.

It's great really.

Try it out :)

If you want to find some fact based source besides one senator's rant (from the opposition party) about Obama being Nixon like that shows that he is, I'd be happy to watch it. Until then, I'll sit here with some facts and you can sit there with your opinions and we'll have a happy medium of my being right and your being upset.

verbal138

10-23-2009, 12:27 AM

Ok fine, I was wrong.

I read her article and response and she sounded off her nut.

But good work on the research. I am wrong.

Obama still isn't nixon. You still didn't come up with your own opinions and you're still wrong.

Oh... so you mean you jumped to an erroneous conclusion based on nothing? Yet that still didn't stop you from claiming with authority that she was a right wing pundit, did it? See a pattern here? I do. You don't understand anything, have an extremely limited understanding of the issues, and yet... here you are making statements you can't back up with anything but idiotic insults.

My opinions on the subject have been well established. I've been discussing this issue for at least a couple of weeks now with a handful of friends via an email chain that we discuss politics throughout the week. My opinion is based on the simple fact that no president administration since Nixon has attacked a news organization like Obama is currently doing. That's a fact. Bush and Clinton both froze out groups they didn't like, that shit is common practice. But going on TV in a designed effort to discredit an entire news organization, and actually tell other news organizations how THEY should treat Fox, is really just unprecedented over the last 30 years. It really doesn't matter if you believe me, what I'm saying is the truth... and we can see from your idiocy above that you really don't understand the issues to begin with.

verbal138

10-23-2009, 12:33 AM

Have you gone to mediamatters? Have you watched the videos?

All they do is push propaganda. Michael Moore cites "facts" and "evidence" and makes videos too... doesn't change the fact that it's all pretty much bullshit slanted through an extreme political viewpoint.

The fact that you're actually disputing what mediamatters is, is hilarious. They are a WELL established liberal group. They are a moveon.org type. This is their OWN description of themselves:

Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.

Do you understand what Progressive means? You are citing an EXTREMELY bias, EXTREMELY liberal organization as basically a fact checker... this is hilarious. First, one of the most well established moderates in Washington is a "right wing pundit" and now one of the most well established extremely far left media groups is a reliable fact checker. It's pretty obvious how skewed your politics are, and how it's skewing any judgment you may have been capable of.

verbal138

10-23-2009, 12:34 AM

...I'm going to bed, I can continue my fun at your expense later.

Sargasm

10-23-2009, 12:37 AM

Oh... so you mean you jumped to an erroneous conclusion based on nothing? Yet that still didn't stop you from claiming with authority that she was a right wing pundit, did it? See a pattern here? I do. You don't understand anything, have an extremely limited understanding of the issues, and yet... here you are making statements you can't back up with anything but idiotic insults.

My opinions on the subject have been well established. I've been discussing this issue for at least a couple of weeks now with a handful of friends via an email chain that we discuss politics throughout the week. My opinion is based on the simple fact that no president administration since Nixon has attacked a news organization like Obama is currently doing. That's a fact. Bush and Clinton both froze out groups they didn't like, that shit is common practice. But going on TV in a designed effort to discredit an entire news organization, and actually tell other news organizations how THEY should treat Fox, is really just unprecedented over the last 30 years. It really doesn't matter if you believe me, what I'm saying is the truth... and we can see from your idiocy above that you really don't understand the issues to begin with.

Regardless, I said I was wrong. You're deflecting.

Go to mediamatters and watch the video. Stop playing demagogue, it's stupid. And... well completely transparent.

The matters at hand were:

a) there is no factual information to show that obama is like nixon

b) mediamatters has references to actual evidence of Fox News acting politically without consideration for fact checking

You have failed to address either of those facts and you just bring up points that are completely without value.

So if you have nothing better to offer than ad-hominem attacks and you can't offer ANY level of actual discourse, then talking to you is a waste of time.

Go to the site and see what the argument is instead of just finding reasons not to. Look up ad-hominem too please. It's a farce wherein the user falsely attempts to declare an argument invalid through personal attacks.

Actually address the substance instead of attacking charactor. If all you care about is name calling, that's fine, I enjoy this quite a bit myself :)

s.p.e.c.t.r.e.

10-23-2009, 01:19 AM

Are you kidding me? Something historical happen? Getting the olympics is something historical? You do realize they're every 4 years right? Obama went personally because he's such an egomaniac that he thought he could fly over there, talk about himself, his historic election, and they would give him the Olympics so he could (hopefully) use it as crown acheivement to cap of his second term. Listen to his pitch to the committee... it was 60% about HIM!

Meanwhile, he had previously been at the UN security counsel meeting. At the time we had definitive proof Iran had lied to the international community and was building a secret nuclear facility. Sarkozy was ready to use this huge forum to expose Iran and demand sanctions, what does Obama do? He prevents Sarkozy from doing so and doesn't even bring it up himself, why? Because HE wanted to wax on and on and on about HIS vision for a nuclear free world and didn't want any small inconsequential items (like Iran building a secret nuclear facility) to trump HIS press about HIS grand vision. Oh... and he wanted to rush off to give a presentation on why he is great and should be given the olympics.

you just know everything and have it all figured out huh? good for you :thumb:

and all i heard about on Npr that day was Olympics, quickly followed by Obama addressing the iran secret facility and making a big deal out of it. so.... anyway, you have it all figured out tho obviously, so have fun with that nonsense :)

dave

10-23-2009, 08:21 AM

It isn't news. It's propaganda.
i am thinking the other major news bureau heads don't follow your line of thought.....

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/23/white-house-loses-bid-exclude-fox-news-pay-czar-interview/

White House Loses Bid to Exclude Fox News From Pay Czar Interview

The Obama administration on Thursday tried to make "pay czar" Kenneth Feinberg available for interviews to every member of the White House pool except Fox News. The pool is the five-network rotation that for decades has shared the costs and duties of daily coverage of the presidency.

But the Washington bureau chiefs of the five TV networks consulted and decided that none of their reporters would interview Feinberg unless Fox News was included.

The administration relented, making Feinberg available for all five pool members and Bloomberg TV.

how about this one? seen this story about yesterday's attempt to circumvent FOX as a news outlet?

Joy

10-23-2009, 09:15 AM

i am thinking the other major news bureau heads don't follow your line of thought.....

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/23/white-house-loses-bid-exclude-fox-news-pay-czar-interview/

how about this one? seen this story about yesterday's attempt to circumvent FOX as a news outlet?

That really is outrageous. Even if you think Fox News is complete and utter bullshit, ...I need more coffee before I can formulate more than that... but wow.

Brandon

10-23-2009, 09:52 AM

You're a moron.

Alright man... that's the 3rd time you've made a comment like that. This is the very reason these debates/convos get outta control. Please leave these types of comments out of the mix, k?

Brandon

10-23-2009, 09:55 AM

Do you understand what Progressive means? You are citing an EXTREMELY bias, EXTREMELY liberal organization as basically a fact checker...
Yea, but even you have to admit that they base their assertions on validated info from other souces, not wild-ass claims and flat-out opinions like other groups do. I see them as a moderate on the liberal side of things.

Sargasm

10-23-2009, 11:41 AM

Alright man... that's the 3rd time you've made a comment like that. This is the very reason these debates/convos get outta control. Please leave these types of comments out of the mix, k?

Good point.

It's a little difficult though, there is this steaming pot of garbage that is a mockery of information that these people digest all day. It's not factual or fact based, it relies heavily on the parroting of opinion as fact and it's eating away at the guts of this country from the inside out.

Fox News has effectively shown that they are the most effective propaganda machine in the country by suggesting that there is a global initiative of liberal agenda to make facts liberal.

It's insanity. I shouldn't lower my discourse to such a level, but it is incredible that people don't see what is happening.

It stands as somewhere between forced ignorance and complete delusions and it preys upon people's most base emotions. One is fear, fear of everything, fear of government (when the party in control isn't the one they like), fear of others (when the government is the one they do like), and most repulsively, bigotry and a desire to be better than other people.

The deceptive practice of ad-hominem large scale reductions of complex arguments that attack an entire political ideology through misuse of information is ugly.

It is the ugliest thing in this country and it rots the brains of the weak and gives them a way to avoid difficult, complex thought.

Everything is reduced to simple logic and conclusions and they are expected to deny and avoid learning anything new or questioning their own logic.

I honestly consider this type of multi-sourced, corporate agenda based demagoguing to potentially be the beginning of an actual fascist movement in this country.

dave

10-23-2009, 11:50 AM

The deceptive practice of ad-hominem large scale reductions of complex arguments that attack an entire political ideology through misuse of information is ugly.

do you not feel the white house was doing the same?

...esp as it related to the attempted exclusion of foxnews from the pay czar roundtable interview yesterday...

here's the background....
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/23/us/politics/23fox.html?_r=1

Sargasm

10-23-2009, 11:57 AM

do you not feel the white house was doing the same?

...esp as it related to the attempted exclusion of foxnews from the pay czar roundtable interview yesterday...

You do realize that the term 'pay czar' isn't a white house term right?

It's a Fox News terms meant to make Obama look like a man that rules through dictate. It's a method of reducing the administration to something foreign to Americans. It is this type of branding that they are doing successfully that reduces a complex situation (bank funding and the bank's responsibility to the tax payers that saved them) into a simple one (a black man has a czar and he's going bananas!). The racist subtext was intended.

Shouldn't have bailed them out in the first place, but that's neither here nor there.

And no, white house isn't spreading disinformation. Per the mediamatters video I showed before, there is PROOF that Fox News is anti-administration and has an agenda.

Therefor there is no reason to treat them as news.

I think the White House is doing what it should be doing and calling a duck a duck.

Since there is FACTUAL EVIDENCE that Fox News operates with an agenda, it is reasonable for the white house to treat them as such.

The arguments about Fox News are typically not even ABOUT whether or not Fox News is fair and balanced, but rather if it is wise to wage war.

The subtext of this argument is often that A) fox news does have an agenda and B) that the administration should be afraid of pissing them off.

dave

10-23-2009, 12:04 PM

forgot the "quotes," sorry about that...

that being said, you think it is OK to exclude a member of a long standing white house reporting pool, due to ideological differences?

the other members of the news pool evidently do not agree with you in that fox news not "reporting news," as they refused to go along with the white house plans for exclusion in this instance.....

what happens when the administration changes sides, would it then be OK to exclude ABC. CBS, NBC? or even to try to lean on the press so that they will do as you please? isn't a free and unfettered press one of the founding principles of our republic?

Sargasm

10-23-2009, 12:10 PM

forgot the "quotes," sorry about that...

that being said, you think it is OK to exclude a member of a long standing white house reporting pool, due to ideological differences?

what happens when the administration changes sides, would it then be OK to exclude ABC. CBS, NBC? or even to try to lean on the press so that they will do as you please? isn't a free and unfettered press one of the founding principles of our republic?

It isn't due to ideological differences. It's due to fraudulent practices. Fox News is intentionally manipulative of which stories they show in order to support an agenda, they don't just report news.

The basic argument is that because they aren't actually a news organization (again, please see the mediamatters video), they shouldn't be treated as such.

If they start covering the news honestly and they stop spreading disinformation and opinion as fact in their NEWS PROGRAMS, they should be treated the same.

IMO it is absolutely up to the administration to do this. Besides, Bush barred MSNBC and it is well known they didn't call on MSNBC at press converances.

Even if you take the partisan politics out of it, media will always be at odds with the political body. I just think it's ironic that Fox News is talking about speaking truth to power. Since they don't... They spread lies and malcontent instead of covering actual news.

The White House isn't suppressing them. They're just not giving them access that is up to the White House to offer.

dave

10-23-2009, 12:19 PM

IMO it is absolutely up to the administration to do this....
....
The White House isn't suppressing them. They're just not giving them access that is up to the White House to offer.

I think there are some real heavy Constitutional issues here that you are glossing over...

Sargasm

10-23-2009, 12:21 PM

And let me say lastly, I believe in conservatism. Barry Goldwater, for instance, was a pretty cool conservative. Nixon's attitude towards taxation and social policy is actually something that I am not completely opposed to (different times, but he was a pretty balanced man when it came to his ethos with government besides his someone orwellian tendencies and practices). Even George H.W. Bush was in many ways an intelligent and conservative leader.

I mean, I believe that our government should be the absolute minimum that it must be in order to accomplish the most important needs of society. I believe it was a huge mistake to bail out the banks and we could have used all that money in other better ways to stimulate the economy.

I don't hate conservatism. I hate that a corporation (news corp, and specifically roger ailes of fox news) is able to demonize an entire political ideology (liberalism) that has attributes that are quite popular. People that watch Fox don't even really know what is going on, they think that single payer was on the table. They think there were going to be death panels. They are incredibly misinformed about what 'liberals' ideals even are.

That is Fox's goal. To fail to inform and to avoid ever giving the whole story about why the opposing side has a different viewpoint. As such, they are not news. They are a political party.

Sargasm

10-23-2009, 12:26 PM

I think there are some real heavy Constitutional issues here that you are glossing over...

No there aren't. The white house doesn't have to have press conferences. They just can't SUPPRESS news. They can't jail Fox for voicing their other opinion.

The White House (executive branch)'s only constitutional requirement for releasing information is congressional oversite (congress and senate). There IS the freedom of information ACT where in Fox News can force the administration to offer up documents because it is our government.

That said, it is up to the executive branch to govern within law as they see fit. Bush didn't have anywhere close to the same number of press conferences. He didn't go in front of reporters ANYWHERE near the same number of times as Obama.

So no, there isn't a constitutional requirement for the white house to let fox news reporters in to misconstrue facts in order to support their agenda.

Were you alive for the last 8 years?

Do you know how Bush dealt with media?

Go here www.democracynow.org <--- these guys are pretty much against everyone.

That is free and independent media. Go research how Bush actually supressed freedom of speech.

You know about Valorie Plame? The Bush administration OUTED HER AS A CIA AGENT BECAUSE HER HUSBAND WAS WRITING UNFLATTERING words about the administration.

THAT is illegal. THAT is unconstitutional (suppression of freedom of speech).

Do you understand the difference?

dave

10-23-2009, 12:27 PM

That is Fox's goal. To fail to inform and to avoid ever giving the whole story about why the opposing side has a different viewpoint. As such, they are not news. They are a political party.

again, i believe the rest of the white house pool disagree with you on this point...

here's the deal
hiding under a rock is OK, forcing 'recognized media' to be excluded from official press conferences is a different animal all together...

Sargasm

10-23-2009, 12:28 PM

again, i believe the rest of the white house pool disagree with you on this point...

what are your thoughts on the potential Constitutional issues revolving around this scenario?

See my last post.

This isn't constitutional. It isn't suppression of free press. It's politics.

Sargasm

10-23-2009, 12:30 PM

Seriously man, I am not an American National Government teacher.

If you want to find out why I'm so upset, you're going to have to do some research into fox news and the past administration. You are going to have to get the information from people that don't like them (because no one in the press does and no one interested in civil rights or that was interested in the REAL cause of the iraq war likes them. Fox was bush's number 1 ally in perpetuating the lies of his administration)

Go read something.

Otherwise you're stuck. Not knowing why I feel the way I do. But honestly it's a waste of time trying to talk to someone that is simply ignorant on what is happening in their world.

dave

10-23-2009, 12:31 PM

See my last post.

This isn't constitutional. It isn't suppression of free press. It's politics.
no it's not Constitutional, I agree......
;)

had they not gone public with their intent, i could see it as being OK marginally... but as they have come out with their intent, it becomes a big deal IMO...

The Constitution is crystal clear about freedom of the press and this is a direct violation of that right. The WH or any arm of the government does not have the right, whatever the reason sans a physical threat, to exclude a member of the press.

Sargasm

10-23-2009, 12:33 PM

no it's not.... had they not gone public with their intent, i could see it as being OK marginally... but as they have come out with their intent, it becomes a big deal IMO

See this is where you're using opinion to judge constitutional law.

AND it's ironic because of how the bush administration practiced methods that were ACTUALLY illegal.

You are just uneducated and it's like trying to teach an unwilling child math, I'm afraid you're just not going to get it and you need to get a job in a mine.

Ok?

Sargasm

10-23-2009, 12:34 PM

Being frustrating isn't the same as being right.

Being unwilling to learn or to consider another point of view doesn't make you intelligent.

Joy

10-23-2009, 12:35 PM

Sargasm

10-23-2009, 12:35 PM

After you go do some research into the executive branch and freedom of the press and constitutional law... so you understand the difference between political action and suppression of free press... then come back and we'll have a talk like adults would.

KayceeFace

10-23-2009, 12:35 PM

why would personally attack someone like that?

dave

10-23-2009, 12:35 PM

are you talking into a mirror right now?

:)

Joy

10-23-2009, 12:36 PM

Being frustrating isn't the same as being right.

Being unwilling to learn or to consider another point of view doesn't make you intelligent.

Eean, the only person looking unwilling is you.

Sargasm

10-23-2009, 12:39 PM

Why is it that people always have to compare what the current president is doing to previous presidents that did other stuff the same, differently, better, worse, etc. ?

It is like people assume that if you have a problem with one administration it must be because you liked what the other one did... so weird. Does it *always* have to be Democrat vs. Republican? Can't it ever just be this is bad and so was that, but this is current... I don't get it.

I actually agree with you, but the problem is that most people in this country have learned NOT to learn.

The method of arguing is to be ignorant and let someone else's lack of ability to educate you on matters you don't care to learn about yourself to be proof that you're right.

Honestly though, I've put in 1000's of hours reading and studying independently to become educated and I try to reference past information that someone SHOULD know so they can understand.

Joy

10-23-2009, 12:41 PM

Sargasm

10-23-2009, 12:41 PM

are you talking into a mirror right now?

:)

No, because I understand what is constitutional and what isn't.

Your not knowing the difference doesn't make you right, just frustrating.

You don't understand what freedom of the press entails, because you're showing that you don't.

So it's pointless to try to talk to you about this when you don't understand why what the White House is doing IS constitutional.

Go read about it. Try to understand it better. Your ignorance doesn't make you right.

Erik Mitchell

10-23-2009, 12:44 PM

How's the weather up there on your high horse Eean?

http://th06.deviantart.net/fs7/300W/i/2005/214/2/4/I__d_get_off_my_high_horse____by_Mellowmonkey1.jpg

Sargasm

10-23-2009, 12:45 PM

But Eean, I would not at all surmise that Dave is uneducated. Have you read his posts outside of this particular thread in which you disagree with him?

He doesn't appear to know less than you, just to come to a different conclusion...

Actually no... he's displaying that he doesn't understand what suppressing free press is and he has shown quite clearly that he doesn't understand how the checks and balances work in our government.

I actually went to college for political science and I've read literally 1000's of hours and yes, I can tell when someone doesn't know what they're talking about.

It's actually really simple, but it seems tedious to me to spend my time trying to explain a SIMPLE difference of something that is easy to understand when they could be educating themselves instead.

The constitution outlines that the executive branch has oversight, but it is limited to congressional oversight. There is nothing in the constitution requiring the executive branch to provide access to media.

The consititution guarantees the right to free SPEECH... so you can SAY what you want. Fox is, and they still can.

The executive branch serves in many regards 'AT WILL' except for congressional oversight. So if congress mandates that the executive branch give THEM information... that is required by the constitution.

So... it isn't constitutional and if dave knew what the hell he was talking about he'd know that.

It isn't opinion, it's just being educated.

KayceeFace

10-23-2009, 12:45 PM

It seems that because he's not agreeing with you, you are trying to make him feel stupid. If you think he is stupid, why are you still talking to him?

dave

10-23-2009, 12:48 PM

b/c he is actually wrong in this instance, despite his asserted wealth of knowledge

Sargasm

10-23-2009, 12:48 PM

Being educated isn't a high horse...

Seriously, people need to go read a book. I have exerted considerable time and effort into learning everything I can.

That is why I know a lot.

That is what it takes if you want to be a good participant in democracy.

The fact that someone else is ignorant of how the constitution works doesn't make me wrong.

My saying so, isn't a matter of ego, it's a matter of fact. At what point in having a conversation with a child that just doesn't understand do you just give the child a ball and you admit them into special ed and tell them how great they draw outside the lines?

I can't make up for the inadequacies for another, but I can show that the inability to have an actual conversation is because one party needs to go educate themselves better.

Sargasm

10-23-2009, 12:49 PM

b/c he is actually wrong in this instance, despite his asserted wealth of knowledge

No I'm not, read my last post about the constitution and how it applies to the executive branch.

Or don't, at this point I don't care if you understand because some people don't want to know things, they just want to be right.

Honestly if you could open my eyes to some new part of the new constitution guaranteeing access to the executive branch to the media, please show me.

Do you know what executive privilege is?

Joy

10-23-2009, 12:50 PM

Sargasm

10-23-2009, 12:50 PM

Actually no... he's displaying that he doesn't understand what suppressing free press is and he has shown quite clearly that he doesn't understand how the checks and balances work in our government.

I actually went to college for political science and I've read literally 1000's of hours and yes, I can tell when someone doesn't know what they're talking about.

It's actually really simple, but it seems tedious to me to spend my time trying to explain a SIMPLE difference of something that is easy to understand when they could be educating themselves instead.

The constitution outlines that the executive branch has oversight, but it is limited to congressional oversight. There is nothing in the constitution requiring the executive branch to provide access to media.

The consititution guarantees the right to free SPEECH... so you can SAY what you want. Fox is, and they still can.

The executive branch serves in many regards 'AT WILL' except for congressional oversight. So if congress mandates that the executive branch give THEM information... that is required by the constitution.

So... it isn't constitutional and if dave knew what the hell he was talking about he'd know that.

It isn't opinion, it's just being educated.

^^^ read. I explain why you're wrong.

But seriously, just do the work yourself next time and avoid being wrong.

Sargasm

10-23-2009, 12:51 PM

Eean, if it is so simple to explain, you are doing yourself a *huge* disservice by rambling about how uneducated he is and how he ought to educate himself instead... It only makes it look like you are trying to shut him down because you are wrong and embarrassed.

That may not be the case, but from my view... that is what it looks like in this thread and in others...

Because it is lazy to make an argument based solely upon your own misconceptions when you don't even desire to learn the truth.

Not that it isn't common... just lazy.

dave

10-23-2009, 12:53 PM

No I'm not, read my last post about the constitution and how it applies to the executive branch.

Or don't, at this point I don't care if you understand because some people don't want to know things, they just want to be right.

Honestly if you could open my eyes to some new part of the new constitution guaranteeing access to the executive branch to the media, please show me.

Do you know what executive privilege is?

it's not about guaranteeing access, it's about access provided willingly... except to a certain member of the press... i know it's a fine distinction, but the distinction is there...

like i posted earlier, it is perfectly OK to hide under a rock, but once you call a press conference, you can not exclude bona fide members of the press.... sans a physical threat...

Sargasm

10-23-2009, 12:53 PM

There are MANY people who's intelligence I respect quite a lot. Many of them on this board. I don't have to respect everyone, especially not those that are too lazy and indignant to learn about their own government.

I honestly find it to be pathetic, because the info is out there at finger's reach. You just have to have the will and desire to access it.

Sargasm

10-23-2009, 12:54 PM

it's not about guaranteeing access, it's about providing access willingly... except to a certain member of the press... i know it's a fine distinction, but the distinction is there...

like i posted earlier, it is perfectly OK to hide under a rock, but once you call a press conference, you can not exclude bona fide members of the press.... sans a physical threat...

It isn't a constitutional issue then. It's political. As I said before.

It's about what you think they ought to do. Which has nothing to do with the constitution or it's guarantees.

dave

10-23-2009, 12:58 PM

It isn't a constitutional issue then. It's political. As I said before.

It's about what you think they ought to do. Which has nothing to do with the constitution or it's guarantees.

abridging the freedom of the members of the press to do their job, isn;t a constitutional issue?

it was OK when the WH disallowed the reporters the opportunities to speak the the CEOs that BHO had addressed too, right?

From NBC's Chuck Todd
Obviously, I'm one of the newbies here in the White House press corps, so maybe I'm unfamiliar with the ways of how this place works. I have to say, nothing is more frustrating than covering an actual event here at the White House if you at all believe in anything remotely having to do with the First Amendment.

For instance, today, the president gave a speech in the East Room to the business council, an audience of dozens of CEOs and major business leaders in America. As per usual, we're allowed to watch the event behind a ropeline. Ok, standard procedure for any event for any candidate, let alone a president. But unlike public events, here at the White House, when the event ends, we get no access to the audience unless the audience happens to amble up to the ropeline and chat with the press.

Today, it was so bad that we were kept behind closed doors so that these CEOs and other business leaders could leave without accidentally mingling with us poor press peons. Once the CEOs were clear and escorted downstairs, then we were let out of our East Room pen. And it's not like we could rush over to the east side of the White House and find anyone left to interview about their role on this business council. By the time, a member of the press leaves out the one exit they can come in and out of, those guys and gals would be history. I'm sure most of them had cars at the ready to quickly get them to their next meeting.

When asked about why we were kept from mingling with the CEOs, the White House press office said it was simply a crowd issue, they didn't want us and the CEOs to be bumping into each other. Yes, there's a possibility that we could hold each other up from moving, creating some hallway gridlock. But we're all grown-ups and it's not like we're a crowd of thousands or even hundreds.

Seriously, is this the picture the White House wants? CEOs who come to the people's house and then get rushed out so they don't have to deal with press questions?

This beat has a lot of limitations; security takes precedent over access to much of the inner-workings of this place and it's understandable in many instances. But public events like the one the president held today ought to allow the press a tad more access to these guests who are apparently involved in some of the people's business of the day. Just because a previous admin has "always done it this way" doesn't mean it's the way things should continue to be done.
Message control is something every White House wants but sometimes when a White House attempts to control a message too much, they can irritate the press to the point that we all stop even paying attention to their message of the day. Just ask the previous occupant.

*** UPDATE, RESPONSE TO COMMENTORS: "This isn't about us not having access, this is about ANYONE having access... if it's NOT us, it's the public!...Beat us up all you want, but this isn't about us whining, it's about us not even being able to do the job you want us to do and that is be the people's questioner here. But, of course, having a respectable debate on this issue with some is impossible. The irony, of course, is that many of you would be just as upset about the lack of access as I am if the occupant of the White House were someone else.

Joy

10-23-2009, 01:01 PM

How on earth can you separate the constitution from politics? They are not mutually exclusive... in fact they are the opposite. You wouldn't *have* politics in this country the way we do if there wasn't the constitution that politicians spend so much time examining, amending and discussing...

The interpretation of the constitution is exactly the way we get the differing parties and the biases that are presented by various news organizations!!!

Sargasm

10-23-2009, 01:03 PM

The constitution outlines that the executive branch has oversight, but it is limited to congressional oversight. There is nothing in the constitution requiring the executive branch to provide access to media.

The consititution guarantees the right to free SPEECH... so you can SAY what you want. Fox is, and they still can.

I already responded to this. Ok... so unless you can find some new part of the constitution that talks specifically about how all media has to be granted interviews with the white house, it isn't constitutional.

Fox news can still say what that want and report what they want. The White House can decide how they want to use their relationships.

If you can't understand that, I give up.

Why don't you just contact the ACLU and have them sue as a constitutional law case, because apparently you have one.

Sargasm

10-23-2009, 01:05 PM

The interpretation of the constitution is exactly the way we get the differing parties and the biases that are presented by various news organizations!!!

What is the constitution, in your words?

Joy

10-23-2009, 01:09 PM

What is the constitution, in your words?

Oh, I'm sorry, Eean. I simply feel it ludicrous to have to define something where the definition is so easily found via google..... ;) Go read a book.

Sargasm

10-23-2009, 01:10 PM

Then you know!

The constitution is the framework. Laws exist within the framework.

How about this one. How do you ratify the constitution?

How is the constitution defended?

KayceeFace

10-23-2009, 01:13 PM

did you take communication classes?

Joy

10-23-2009, 01:14 PM

Well, being that I've taken multiple classes on political theory and government in college... I know.

Well, being that I haven't taken a class on *anything* in about 7 years or so... I guess it doesn't matter what I think the constitution is or isn't.

But I'll still answer. *Without* having used google or having recently read a book on the subject.

It is my (apparently insufficient) opinion that the Constitution is the document by which our government decides what actions are allowable in order to support the rights of the people residing within their jurisdiction.

I am certain you think that is, at best, inaccurate or maybe incomplete. Please find it in your heart to enlighten me... ;)

Joy

10-23-2009, 01:16 PM

Then you know!

The constitution is the framework. Laws exist within the framework.

How about this one. How do you ratify the constitution?

How is the constitution defended?

How does that apply to the original topic in this thread?

Joy

10-23-2009, 01:16 PM

God, Eean, you fight like my father. It is disturbing.

Sargasm

10-23-2009, 01:23 PM

Well, being that I haven't taken a class on *anything* in about 7 years or so... I guess it doesn't matter what I think the constitution is or isn't.

But I'll still answer. *Without* having used google or having recently read a book on the subject.

It is my (apparently insufficient) opinion that the Constitution is the document by which our government decides what actions are allowable in order to support the rights of the people residing within their jurisdiction.

I am certain you think that is, at best, inaccurate or maybe incomplete. Please find it in your heart to enlighten me... ;)

That's part of it.

The Constitution is the framing document for how the government governs.

It outlines the three branches, the judicial, the legislative and the executive, it also outlines the the way that it can be ratified.

It gives the legislative the right to write the law, the judicial the right to translate it and the executive the right to enact the law.

It gives the legislative house of commons (the house of representatives) as the people's house essential and the senate.

After being written it was amended with the bill of rights which gave the freedom of speech, the right to bare arms etc...

All our laws and codes are written separately except for the constitution and its 27 amendments.

Laws deal with how the country is governed and must fall into the lines of the constitution, as must each of the three branches. The legislative must not pass laws that infringe upon it, the executive must not act against it... the judicial is largely free of oversight except when judges are confirmed.

The constitution, while integral, has little to do with the day to day dealings of politics unless they interact directly against it.

When they do, it is up to the judicial to oversee the transgressions in one of the federal district courts or later, the supreme court.

This is how power is balanced in our country.

dave

10-23-2009, 01:25 PM

lets talk about case law related to abridging the freedom of the press now...

Sargasm

10-23-2009, 01:29 PM

How does that apply to the original topic in this thread?

I'm responding to your earlier question about how all politics should involve the constitution. I'm explaining how it works.

Sargasm

10-23-2009, 01:32 PM

lets talk about case law related to abridging the freedom of the press now...

It isn't an issue, except one you made up and you don't have anything to go on.

Go ahead and find me some research showing that it is believed that this is a violation of the constitution and I'll listen. Until then, go play make believe by yourself.

Make it an independent news source, not fox news. Not owned by a corporation with a specific interest.

Trust me the independent news LOVES stories about suppression of free press. It will be out there.

Joy

10-23-2009, 01:38 PM

I'm responding to your earlier question about how all politics should involve the constitution. I'm explaining how it works.

You didn't comprehend what I was getting at. You actually have me confused as to what you are getting at and how it answers my questions: "How can you separate politics from the Constitution?"

Eean, you aren't making sense.

Sargasm

10-23-2009, 01:42 PM

You didn't comprehend what I was getting at. You actually have me confused as to what you are getting at and how it answers my questions: "How can you separate politics from the Constitution?"

Eean, you aren't making sense.

Because politics has to do with the making of laws primarily. Very little actually deals with the constitution.

Except wanting to create a law to make it illegal to be a woman after 3 pm or some shit... it's largely not constitutional, it's political.

The constitution is just the framework.

Constitutional items are largely handled by the courts in judicial oversight.

Does that make more sense?

dave

10-23-2009, 01:42 PM

Go ahead and find me some research showing that it is believed that this is a violation of the constitution and I'll listen. Until then, go play make believe by yourself.

Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, in Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia (1980)

"The First Amendment goes beyond protection of the press and the self-expression of individuals to prohibit government from limiting the stock of information from which members of the public may draw."

Sargasm

10-23-2009, 01:50 PM

Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, in Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia (1980)

"The First Amendment goes beyond protection of the press and the self-expression of individuals to prohibit government from limiting the stock of information from which members of the public may draw."

They still may draw the same information. They just have to do it the same way the regular press does. Letters to clerks, phone calls or whatever.

Fox News is in no way prevented from reporting. They just aren't given the same privileges as actual news organizations.

It's not like everyone that asks for an interview automatically gets one.

It's subjective... this is that executive privilege I was talking about.

Furthermore this case was about the government disallowing ANY information to be released to the public, "First Amendment guarantees of speech and press, standing alone, prohibit government from summarily closing courtroom doors which had long been open to the public at the time that Amendment was adopted."

^^^^ that is also in the judgement that you posted... it was much more specific... using facts without context can be the same as intentionally misleading. In this case, the context is very important.

So the judgement is specific about the the government not being able to refuse admittance to all media for its own interest.

Once again, that isn't what we're talking about. We're talking about preferential treatment which is at the will of the executive and therefor not constitutional.

dave

10-23-2009, 01:51 PM

"They fill their newspapers with falsehoods, calumnies and audacities. I shall protect them in their right of lying and calumniating." Thomas Jefferson

dave

10-23-2009, 01:52 PM

Once again, that isn't what we're talking about. We're talking about preferential treatment which is at the will of the executive and therefor not constitutional.
I contend that the ruling has been much more widely interpreted than you are saying...

Sargasm

10-23-2009, 01:53 PM

"They fill their newspapers with falsehoods, calumnies and audacities. I shall protect them in their right of lying and calumniating." Thomas Jefferson

They still have the right to do so.

Seriously man are you so daft that you don't understand the difference?

The White House is no longer giving them one on one interviews. They are still allowed at press room sessions.

There are more sources of news than the 4 major news networks and fox news. They don't all get interviews.

They can still lie and put it on their shows and put it on the air.

Can't they? Can't they still say whatever they want?

Sargasm

10-23-2009, 01:56 PM

I contend that the ruling has been much more widely interpreted than you are saying...

Fox News can still get information. They are just not getting special treatment.

Sargasm

10-23-2009, 01:57 PM

Unless you can show me where the white house is standing in the way of fox news getting info the same way all the other smaller news outlets get it... you're wrong.

Not getting face to face interviews isn't the same as not being privy to information.

They received preferential treatment when they were considered one of the major news sources, now they don't.

Sargasm

10-23-2009, 01:59 PM

Geee you didn't get this information from fox did you?

http://www.foxnews.com/search-results/m/27033028/constitutional-violation.htm

verbal138

10-23-2009, 02:00 PM

Regardless, I said I was wrong. You're deflecting.

Go to mediamatters and watch the video. Stop playing demagogue, it's stupid. And... well completely transparent.

I'm not deflecting, I just don't care to waste my time with mediamatters transparent propaganda. I've fact checked and researched plenty of their work, and a large % of it is total partisan bullshit. It's hilarious you're claiming they have any credibility, it would be like me citing glen beck's website and expecting you to take it seriously.

Anyway, to placate you I watched some of the bullshit video you posted. I only got about two minutes in, but I think I get the point. That Fox started the war because they've been attacking him since he came into office, right?

Well here's the problem with that... the vast majority of those clips are op-ed pundits, they are not Fox's straight news, they're the opion based programs. Guess what genius, that's their JOB! They're supposed to have an opinion. Bush was constantly attacked by the NY Times, MSNBC, Huffington Post, even fucking CBS (how do you like that pink slip Dan Rather?)... did he once call the NY Times "not really a newspaper"? Of course not, Karl Rove is much too smart to allow his guy to say something that ridiculous.

As president you're going to take shots from news entities that have a different "perspective", that's a part of the job. Going out with a concentrated effort to try and undermine a news agency's is something that we haven't seen from a Presidential administration since Nixon and good ol' Spiro. They've come out and specifically told news organizations how THEY should treat Fox, that's really quite unbelievable.

Like I said, it's also short sighted and very poor strategic move politically. Look at what's happening now, you have all of the other "straight news" (excluding the obvious propaganda peices like MSNBC and Newsweek) organizations coming to Fox's defense... you think that's what Obama believed was going to happen? Clearly not. He thought he could influence the way Fox was treated, that he could blackball them, and it's blown up in his face.

The matters at hand were:

a) there is no factual information to show that obama is like nixon

Wrong. Name me one organization that has spent as much time and effort attacking a single news entity as the Obama admin has since Nixon/Spiro?

Here's how ridiculous it is. When Bill Maher said that 9/11 hijackers weren't cowards, that the guy who hides and launches cruise missiles is a coward. The Whitehouse's response was something to the effect of 'well people really should be more careful with what they say'... that's it. What happened? Complete outrage from the left and the NY Times etc... claiming that Bush was trying to silence the free press. Flash forward to Obama... and he is out there telling the world who is and who is not "legitimate" and telling other news organizations that they should treat fox as an illegitimate news organization. It's truly absurd you're actually defending this. The liberals I discuss politics with on a daily basis even say they wish he wouldn't be going down this path... but then again they're educated and intellectually honest.

dave

10-23-2009, 02:00 PM

i actually heard an attorney on NPR this morning discussing it as an issue while i was in the shower

Sargasm

10-23-2009, 02:01 PM

Why didn't you say that this was something that Fox News postulated that you were repeating...

Of course you thought you had a leg to stand on, because they told you they did.

Joy

10-23-2009, 02:01 PM

Has the government ever publicly given their opinion on the National Enquirer?

Sargasm

10-23-2009, 02:03 PM

Has the government ever publicly given their opinion on the National Enquirer?

National Enquirer doesn't receive face to face interviews with the administration... because they aren't news.

Sargasm

10-23-2009, 02:04 PM

I'm not deflecting, I just don't care to waste my time with mediamatters transparent propaganda. I've fact checked and researched plenty of their work, and a large % of it is total partisan bullshit. It's hilarious you're claiming they have any credibility, it would be like me citing glen beck's website and expecting you to take it seriously.

I will take you seriously when you have actually looked at what else is out there instead of living inside your righty bubble.

dave

10-23-2009, 02:04 PM

Why didn't you say that this was something that Fox News postulated that you were repeating...

Of course you thought you had a leg to stand on, because they told you they did.
b/c i had heard the point on NPR, not fox...

NOW, admit you are wrong, despite all of the knowledge you are carrying around...

:)

Sargasm

10-23-2009, 02:05 PM

b/c i had heard the point on NPR, not fox...

NOW, admit you are wrong, despite all of the knowledge you are carrying around...

:)

Ok, you heard it on NPR.

dave

10-23-2009, 02:06 PM

Ok, you heard it on NPR.
and you continued to call me ignorant....
when it was a bona fide issue....

what other issues are you unclear about?

you forgot to mention the part about it being a potential Constitutional issue, under several amendments....

:)

:popcorn:

Sargasm

10-23-2009, 02:07 PM

verbal138

10-23-2009, 02:09 PM

Yea, but even you have to admit that they base their assertions on validated info from other souces, not wild-ass claims and flat-out opinions like other groups do. I see them as a moderate on the liberal side of things.

They vaildate their assertions with skewed facts, with the "liberal facts". It's like if I posted shit off of National Review. They back their arguments up with facts as well, but they only acknowledge the facts that support their arguments and ignore the ones that don't. Mediatmatters is even worse, in that they draw erroneous conclusions all the time from premises that don't support their findings.

Here's a good example, because it's fresh in my head.

The current education Czar once said a 15 year old boy came to him and told him he was having sex with an older man. His advice was that he should wear a condom because of aids and whatnot. I'm sure you've heard about this. So, there was outrage at the time, and he was investigated because legally he had to report the incident because the boy was 15, if he was 16 thought, he was fine because that was the age of consent. So, they investigate it and his lawyer issues a statement that the boy was 16 not 15, and there's clearly no way anyone could prove differently.

So here's the problem, Fox and whoever is talking about the story saying the boy was 15... in mediamatters "fact checking" they determine the boy was 16, why? Because his lawyer says so. They completely ignore the fact that there is audio tape of the guy saying the boy was 15 - when he had no reason to lie. Now, was the boy 15 or 16? Hard to say, but clearly a lawyer's statement (when the client is being investigated for a crime) is anything but definitive proof of his clients innocence (OJ anyone?).

dave

10-23-2009, 02:10 PM

Sargasm

10-23-2009, 02:10 PM

They vaildate their assertions with skewed facts, with the "liberal facts". It's like if I posted shit off of National Review. They back their arguments up with facts as well, but they only acknowledge the facts that support their arguments and ignore the ones that don't. Mediatmatters is even worse, in that they draw erroneous conclusions all the time from premises that don't support their findings.

Here's a good example, because it's fresh in my head.

The current education Czar once said a 15 year old boy came to him and told him he was having sex with an older man. His advice was that he should wear a condom because of aids and whatnot. I'm sure you've heard about this. So, there was outrage at the time, and he was investigated because legally he had to report the incident because the boy was 15, if he was 16 thought, he was fine because that was the age of consent. So, they investigate it and his lawyer issues a statement that the boy was 16 not 15, and there's clearly no way anyone could prove differently.

So here's the problem, Fox and whoever is talking about the story saying the boy was 15... in mediamatters "fact checking" they determine the boy was 16, why? Because his lawyer says so. They completely ignore the fact that there is audio tape of the guy saying the boy was 15 - when he had no reason to lie. Now, was the boy 15 or 16? Hard to say, but clearly a lawyer's statement (when the client is being investigated for a crime) is anything but definitive proof of his clients guilt (OJ anyone?).

Go to mediamatters, freakin coward. Look around. Be open to being wrong.

It will happen sometimes, and it's ok, you're still who you are.

Sargasm

10-23-2009, 02:11 PM

the person i heard on NPR was saying it could have been a pretty big deal,had the other news agencies went along with what the WH had suggested initially...

You're still wrong.

dave

10-23-2009, 02:11 PM

Be open to being wrong.

It will happen sometimes, and it's ok, you're still who you are.

just like you are still who you are, correct?

Sargasm

10-23-2009, 02:12 PM

This is why it pays to form your own opinions. So you'd know when something was absurd and you didn't have to absorb it as fact without questioning the validity of the information.

dave

10-23-2009, 02:12 PM

You're still wrong.

i disagree...

just b/c the first actual link you could find about the constitutionality question was foxnews, does not mean it's not a valid issue

Sargasm

10-23-2009, 02:13 PM

just like you are still who you are, correct?

I've admitted being wrong 2 times in this thread on minor details while still being right overall... I didn't see you admitting you were wrong when the source of your opinion recanted and apologized.

:P

Sargasm

10-23-2009, 02:14 PM

i disagree...

just b/c the first actual link you could find about the constitutionality question was foxnews, does not mean it's not a valid issue

The source of your opinion recanted and apologized for being way off base, but you remain unconvinced. So... your mind is easy to change if it an issue that stands with your ideology, but if it shows something ad odds, it is slow to change.

That's cool.

dave

10-23-2009, 02:15 PM

I've admitted being wrong 2 times in this thread on minor details while still being right overall... I didn't see you admitting you were wrong when the source of your opinion recanted and apologized.

:P

b/c my opinion was not fed by anyone, it was brought up inthe media... true...

then i went and did some texting with some attorney friends of mine, to confirm it being apotential issue...

you are the one who continued to espouse your mastery of American Govt, and the documents surrounding it...
without understanding some of the finer points...

your right, it's all good...

:)

Joy

10-23-2009, 02:15 PM

Eean wtf?

Sargasm

10-23-2009, 02:15 PM

b/c my opinion was not fed by anyone, it was brought up inthe media...

then i went and did some texting with some attorney friends of mine, to confirm it being apotential issue...

you are the one who continued to espouse your mastery of American Govt, and the documents surrounding it...

Lol, whatever man.

BeatFreq

10-23-2009, 02:16 PM

dave

10-23-2009, 02:18 PM

this was not a one on one interview situation

Sargasm

10-23-2009, 02:18 PM

Eean wtf?

I really didn't mean to upset you.

This is... a perverse kind of entertainment for me.

Don't let it bother you, it's just the internet.

verbal138

10-23-2009, 02:18 PM

I will take you seriously when you have actually looked at what else is out there instead of living inside your righty bubble.

Wait, I live inside a bubble? You're the jackass who calls a respected moderate (who voted for Obama) a "right wing pundit". You're the guy who assumes anyone who disagrees with you is "watching Fox news" even when they're listening to NPR. You're the JACKASS who thinks mediamatters (a well known leftist propagandist) is a respected fact checker.

I read politico, wash. post, rcp, reuters, and the occasional NY Times op-ed... the conservatives I respect are the independent minded ones like Krauthhammer and Brooks (clearly someone as undeducated as you won't know who these people are, but google them so you can pretend you do... better than automatically assuming like you did with Marcus). You on the other hand are eating up mediamatters and your nonsense stinks to high hell of huff post and daily kos as well. Although, I wouldn't be surprised if you denied it.

dave

10-23-2009, 02:18 PM

precisely

Don't let it bother you, it's just the internet.

Sargasm

10-23-2009, 02:18 PM

this was not a one on one interview situation

high five!

Joy

10-23-2009, 02:19 PM

I really didn't mean to upset you.

This is... a perverse kind of entertainment for me.

Don't let it bother you, it's just the internet.

It bothers me a great deal because you are exhibiting some very troublesome qualities that hint at a very big personality disorder...

dave

10-23-2009, 02:19 PM

It should be beneath the White House to get involved on this level with the peanut gallery.

that was kind of my whole point...

Sargasm

10-23-2009, 02:20 PM

Wait, I live inside a bubble? You're the jackass who calls a respected moderate (who voted for Obama) a "right wing pundit". You're the guy who assumes anyone who disagrees with you is "watching Fox news" even when they're listening to NPR. You're the JACKASS who thinks mediamatters (a well known leftist propagandist) is a respected fact checker.

I read politico, wash. post, rcp, reuters, and the occasional NY Times op-ed... the conservatives I respect are the independent minded ones like Krauthhammer and Brooks (clearly someone as undeducated as you won't know who these people are, but google them so you can pretend you do... better than automatically assuming like you did with Marcus). You on the other hand are eating up mediamatters and your nonsense stinks to high hell of huff post and daily kos as well. Although, I wouldn't be surprised if you denied it.

I am also a jackass that read her column before you brought it up, as well as her followup column and determined on his own she was a pundit.

So yeah... I formed a wrong opinion, but I did it on my own. THEN, I admitted when I was wrong and corrected after reading what you posted.

So... I do a lot of things you don't.

Go to mediamatters and read something that is at odds with what you believe, you might learn something new and interesting. I read fox news and hannity and crap all the time. Even like instapundit and some of the other righty bloggers.

Why?

Cause I am interested in possibly being wrong and not just in maintaining my ideology.

verbal138

10-23-2009, 02:24 PM

Wow, what a thread...

my $0.02...

Fox News is a joke and a sham of a 'news' organization.

It should be beneath the White House to get involved on this level with the peanut gallery.

As far as interviews, I think it's within the rights of the admin to decide who they grant 1-on-1 interviews with. The last admin exercised the same right, and Fox got preferential treatment for quite a while. Now the shoe's on the other foot, so they're finding themselves in the relative cold, taking their potshots from the nosebleed seats. Tough shit.

At least the current admin isn't shuttling fake reporters into the press room to lob softball questions...

Ok, hang on a second here. Giving 1-on-1 interviews is one thing, that shit has been common practice for decades. That's not what we're talking about, we're talking about denying pool reporter access and going out in an organized blitz this last saturday to attempt to undermine the legitimacy of a news organization. That is ENTIRELY different than anything the Bush admin, or any since Nixon/Agnew, has been guilty of.

And excuse me, are you fucking shitting me about the fake reporters/softballs? Obama was busted in a primetime presser knowing the question ahead of time. He treats the huff post like a major network, when they're really only a glorified liberal blog. The ONLY hard questions come from Tapper (and Major Garret I guess, he's just not as skilled at it) and we'll see how long he's in there.

Answer me this, have you seen the things that Axelrod and Rahm have said? Maybe you just haven't been paying attention, because the level they're taking it is entirely different.

Sargasm

10-23-2009, 02:24 PM

It bothers me a great deal because you are exhibiting some very troublesome qualities that hint at a very big personality disorder...

That's odd... you think I might be crazy?

Because I like arguing on the internet?

If so, the prognosis for our society is not good.

Sargasm

10-23-2009, 02:25 PM

Ok, hang on a second here. Giving 1-on-1 interviews is one thing, that shit has been common practice for decades. That's not what we're talking about, we're talking about denying pool reporter access and going out in an organized blitz this last saturday to attempt to undermine the legitimacy of a news organization. That is ENTIRELY different than anything the Bush admin, or any since Nixon/Agnew, has been guilty of.

And excuse me, are you fucking shitting me about the fake reporters/softballs? Obama was busted in a primetime presser knowing the question ahead of time. He treats the huff post like a major network, when they're really only a glorified liberal blog. The ONLY hard questions come from Tapper (and Major Garret I guess, he's just not as skilled at it) and we'll see how long he's in there.

Answer me this, have you seen the things that Axelrod and Rahm have said? Maybe you just haven't been paying attention, because the level they're taking it is entirely different.

Read this article about how crazy it is to compare nixon with obama... from someone that had said it.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/politicaljunkie/2009/10/weighing_in_on_white_house_vs.html

Joy

10-23-2009, 02:27 PM

dave

10-23-2009, 02:28 PM

Read this article about how crazy it is to compare nixon with obama... from someone that had said it.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/politicaljunkie/2009/10/weighing_in_on_white_house_vs.html

on NPR....

:tinfoil3:

Steve

10-23-2009, 02:30 PM

Recap:

Logical argument
http://i151.photobucket.com/albums/s160/p0ke_me/no20u.jpg

Logical argument
Logical argument
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v607/amongtheomegas/NO_U.jpg

Logical argument
http://evilloop.com/no.u.gif

Logical argument
http://www.suburbannightmare.com/larlar/no_u3.jpg

Logical argument
http://tehomegha.com/content/stuff/astuff/13.JPG

Sargasm

10-23-2009, 02:32 PM

I think you might be a tad narcissistic...

It is kind of embarrassing the way you are trying to put down people in this thread like you know what they know or don't know... because ... it isn't like that...

Narcissism isn't a personality disorder. Look up personality disorders: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_disorder

Personality disorders are very complex psychiatric disorders... usually with lots of elements. Narcissism is ugly and bad, and entirely too common...

Honestly though, I honed my mind for years in different chat rooms with mean people flaming each other and I developed a knack for it.

It is probably narcissistic habit though.

But yeah... not a personality disorder.

dave

10-23-2009, 02:32 PM

LoL

nommo

10-23-2009, 02:32 PM

ibtl?

Sargasm

10-23-2009, 02:33 PM

Recap:

Everybody wants a piece ;)

BeatFreq

10-23-2009, 02:33 PM

Answer me this, have you seen the things that Axelrod and Rahm have said? Maybe you just haven't been paying attention, because the level they're taking it is entirely different.

no, i haven't on either count. :)

Sargasm

10-23-2009, 02:34 PM

ibtl

Steve

10-23-2009, 02:34 PM

ibtl?
NO U!

BeatFreq

10-23-2009, 02:35 PM

Narcissism isn't a personality disorder.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disorder

Sargasm

10-23-2009, 02:35 PM

Recap:

And hey... they were logical uninformed arguments... and I provided logical arguments back.

I was just insulting in the meantime.

Joy

10-23-2009, 02:35 PM

http://www.halcyon.com/jmashmun/npd/dsm-iv.html

Don't know what this site is... but it certainly disagrees with you, Eean, so naturally, I agree with it! :)

Sargasm

10-23-2009, 02:36 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disorder

Oh.

Well I was wrong.

Joy

10-23-2009, 02:36 PM

Oh.

Well I was wrong.
LMAO. awesome.

Sargasm

10-23-2009, 02:37 PM

http://www.halcyon.com/jmashmun/npd/dsm-iv.html

Don't know what this site is... but it certainly disagrees with you, Eean, so naturally, I agree with it! :)

I guess since we hang out and we're such great friends, you know me better than anyone.

Sargasm

10-23-2009, 02:38 PM

LMAO. awesome.

I am wrong often...

It's not a big deal.

It's only a big deal when people are wrong and they can't get past it or accept it that it can cause problems.

That's how you get smarter... but postulating ideas and being rejected... and trying again.

verbal138

10-23-2009, 02:38 PM

http://www.npr.org/blogs/politicaljunkie/2009/10/weighing_in_on_white_house_vs.html

Ok here is from npr:

"But comparing the tactics of the Nixon administration -- which bugged and intimidated and harrassed journalists -- to that of the Obama administration was foolish, facile, ridiculous and, ultimately, embarrassing to me. I should have known better and, in fact, I do know better. I was around during the Nixon years. I am fully cognizant of what they did and attempted to do.

I still think the Obama administration showed a childish, thin skin in its dealings with and reaction to Fox.

But childishness is a far cry from illegal and unconstitutional activities. And for that I apologize for a dumb comparison."

So... I was wrong you got it from NPR.

Thank you, btw, for giving me a great and knowledgeable source to show BOTH of you how wrong you are at the same time.

haha, hilarious. You didn't prove anyone wrong. That wasn't the quote he was talking about, and clearly this is just one persons opinion. All of the other networks came to Fox's defense today, and the Obama admin had to back down. That's far more important in determining the consensus in the "straight" media.

As far as me, here's the thing... saying no president since nixon, has gone after a news organization with such a targeted effort to discredit them, doesn't mean Obama = Nixon in every regard. This is your inferior intellectual abilities preventing you from understanding the point. The point isn't that in every aspect they're the same, it's that nobody has treated the press like this since Nixon. I don't think Obama and Nixon are one in the same, clearly Nixon went to ridiculous lengths due to his paranoia and general disregard for the law... but that doesn't absolve the fact that no president since Nixon has attacked a major news organization the way Obama is attacking Fox.

Sargasm

10-23-2009, 02:39 PM

Although I will give you this:

Narcissistic Personality Disorder

While grandiosity is the diagnostic hallmark of pathological narcissism, there is research evidence that pathological narcissism occurs in two forms, (a) a grandiose state of mind in young adults that can be corrected by life experiences, and (b) the stable disorder described in DSM-IV, which is defined less by grandiosity than by severely disturbed interpersonal relations.

That was CERTAINLY me when you did know me. However that part about being corrected by life experiences definitely happened.

Sargasm

10-23-2009, 02:40 PM

haha, hilarious. You didn't prove anyone wrong. That wasn't the quote he was talking about, and clearly this is just one persons opinion. All of the other networks came to Fox's defense today, and the Obama admin had to back down. That's far more important in determining the consensus in the "straight" media.

As far as me, here's the thing... saying no president since nixon, has gone after a news organization with such a targeted effort to discredit them, doesn't mean Obama = Nixon in every regard. This is your inferior intellectual abilities preventing you from understanding the point. The point isn't that in every aspect they're the same, it's that nobody has treated the press like this since Nixon. I don't think Obama and Nixon are one in the same, clearly Nixon went to ridiculous lengths due to his paranoia and general disregard for the law... but that doesn't absolve the fact that no president since Nixon has attacked a major news organization the way Obama is attacking Fox.

Actually let me rephrase... it would make a lot more sense to me to take you seriously if you made an attempt to understand where I am coming from.

Just posting up your opinions without any regard for the opinion of others doesn't help anything.

(Yeah, I'm guilty)

Just a thought.

verbal138

10-23-2009, 02:40 PM

no, i haven't on either count. :)

Fair enough, let me dig up the quotes and you can see for yourself.

dave

10-23-2009, 02:42 PM

And hey... they were logical uninformed arguments... and I provided logical arguments back.

...

are you still claiming that the constitutional issue is not there?

Joy

10-23-2009, 02:42 PM

"I may be wrong, but I'll always be more right than you!"

;)

Sargasm

10-23-2009, 02:43 PM

are you still claiming that the constitutional issue is not there?

No... you're still claiming it is.

verbal138

10-23-2009, 02:44 PM

Go to mediamatters, freakin coward. Look around. Be open to being wrong.

It will happen sometimes, and it's ok, you're still who you are.

Here's the thing you fail to understand, I'm not as uneducated as you are. Mediamatters isn't new to me, I understand who acclaimed reporters are... I've spent plenty of time on that website. I've fact checked their "stories" and claims, and have without a doubt shredded many of their arguments. That's why I don't need to go check every story they do, everytime some political noob comes across it and buys their propaganda hook line and sinker. They're a partisan, propaganda drive "fact checker". Pushing an extreme perspective with slanted and simply bullshit "facts".

Joy

10-23-2009, 02:44 PM

Although I will give you this:

That was CERTAINLY me when you did know me. However that part about being corrected by life experiences definitely happened.

I recall discontinuing our friendship when I came to know enough about you to see that your experiences did more to enhance your self-image than to change your actual habits.

Sargasm

10-23-2009, 02:44 PM

"I may be wrong, but I'll always be more right than you!"

;)

Well... yeah. If you are able to discover what you are wrong about... you'll be right about more.

People that don't learn well tend to be those most afraid of being wrong. It takes courage and an ability to be wrong to keep forging ahead and to create a better intelligence.

dave

10-23-2009, 02:46 PM

intelligence is different than an accumulation of facts/figures IMHO

Sargasm

10-23-2009, 02:49 PM

intelligence is different than an accumulation of facts/figures IMHO

I think so too... I think intelligence is the ability to learn faster... understand more quickly.

Dynamic intelligence requires the ability to learn panoramic ally... and to adapt the observations of others into a synthetic knowledge that has dimensions to it that allow for you to create your own observations and to derive your own conclusions.

verbal138

10-23-2009, 02:49 PM

Actually let me rephrase... it would make a lot more sense to me to take you seriously if you made an attempt to understand where I am coming from.

Just posting up your opinions without any regard for the opinion of others doesn't help anything.

(Yeah, I'm guilty)

Just a thought.

I don't give a shit if you take me seriously, we both know I'm much more capable of having a serious conversation on these subjects, because I'm much more informed than you. I came into this thread with a very level headed critique of the Obama administration. I even followed up with two very respected journalists making fair critiques regarding Obama on this issue.

That was me taking the issue seriously, and any intelligent person would have taken those arguments seriously. What did you do? respond with "JACKASS" "MORON" and that Marcuss (a well known and respected moderate who voted for Obama) is a right wing pundit.

Now... who shouldn't be taken seriously? Because I can guarantee you it's clearly not me.

Joy

10-23-2009, 02:50 PM

Eean, I know you and I discussed my father. So please understand that when I point out your similarities it is because I have enough experience with narcissism to recognize it when I see it.

You jumped right on in to tell people how much you know, without talking about *what* you know. You make plenty of claims about how willing you are to further your understanding with not a shred of true humility.

Knowledge is certainly valuable and passion for it is certainly worthy of praise, but it is not at all a badge to wear and never an indication of a person's true character.

It is the mark of a narcissist to admit being wrong just barely often enough to feign humility. Obama is another example, by the way...

nommo

10-23-2009, 02:51 PM

regardless of how "I" feel about "faux news"

... i think the office of 'The President' is above worrying about this crap

verbal138

10-23-2009, 02:51 PM

I am wrong often...

That's because you spout off on issues you don't understand. An intelligent person would research the topic at hand before making bold claims and accusations as you do... clearly you're not an intelligent person.

verbal138

10-23-2009, 02:54 PM

on NPR....

:tinfoil3:

It's not his fault, he has no understanding of the real world... only the world his blogs paint for him.

dave

10-23-2009, 02:55 PM

regardless of how "I" feel about "faux news"

... i think the office of 'The President' is above worrying about this crap

and that is all i was trying to point out, some 200 odd posts ago...

:peace:

Sargasm

10-23-2009, 02:55 PM

I recall discontinuing our friendship when I came to know enough about you to see that your experiences did more to enhance your self-image than to change your actual habits.

Lol... you're like captain low blow.

First I have a personality disorder... now you're bringing up old feuds...

Because I argue on the internet.

Maybe... you are the one with the problem here, joy. You're making it awful personal ;)

I'm not the one talking about my dad obsessively online to make a point about how messed up someone else is.

dave

10-23-2009, 02:57 PM

tough love?

Sargasm

10-23-2009, 02:58 PM

That's because you spout off on issues you don't understand. An intelligent person would research the topic at hand before making bold claims and accusations as you do... clearly you're not an intelligent person.

Yeah... well we know you can go ad-hominem without going to witness what someone else's argument is based on.

So... you're a real winner.

Joy

10-23-2009, 02:58 PM

verbal138

10-23-2009, 02:58 PM

Go to mediamatters and read something that is at odds with what you believe, you might learn something new and interesting. I read fox news and hannity and crap all the time. Even like instapundit and some of the other righty bloggers.

Why?

Cause I am interested in possibly being wrong and not just in maintaining my ideology.

I don't read either, why? Because it's not worth my time. I understand what the mediamatters/huff post crowd is going to say, I understand what the Beck/Hannity crowd is going to say... I don't find value in dishonest arguments. Every once in awhile I'll check in with a Krugman article to see what the left's spin is on an issue, or national review for the right spin on an issue... but for the most part it isn't worth the effort. What you get is a consistently slanted presentation of facts... and I don't want to encourage it with my support via web traffic. IMO there should be less of it, not more.

dave

10-23-2009, 02:58 PM

i wonder if this can get to 150 pages?

Joy

10-23-2009, 03:00 PM

I only have 6... you must have your settings all weird. :)

verbal138

10-23-2009, 03:00 PM

Yeah... well we know you can go ad-hominem without going to witness what someone else's argument is based on.

So... you're a real winner.

You're the JACKASS who started the ad-hominem attacks. If you want to go down that road you're going to get the same in response.

dave

10-23-2009, 03:00 PM

I only have 6... you must have your settings all weird. :)

no, i have 6 pages as of now also...

;)

Sargasm

10-23-2009, 03:01 PM

Truthfully, I am just concerned. Because I really did enjoy the short friendship we had til things went horribly wrong. Because you get super caught up in certain things where you think you stand to gain some new positive opinions on yourself.

And you alienate people as a result. Which is contrary to your own goal.

It is just really alarming the way you've presented yourself in this thread...

What is my goal again?

Honestly, I don't care too much about what people think of me online. My friends see me be a prick online (or oftentimes argue about something they agree with, albeit with a bit more fervor than they might be interested in providing) then they see me in person and I'm normal.

How fucked up are you to publicly try to out someone for a personality disorder? You want to look like you're concerned, but wouldn't you send a private message about that? Isn't it awfully narcissistic to try to get everyone to see how concerned you are for someone else?

I just like arguing, although I like it most with considerate people that are able to listen and admit when they're wrong (not the internet).

verbal138

10-23-2009, 03:02 PM

regardless of how "I" feel about "faux news"

... i think the office of 'The President' is above worrying about this crap

Thank you. See Eean, this is what an intellectual honest liberal response looks like.

Sargasm

10-23-2009, 03:03 PM

You're the JACKASS who started the ad-hominem attacks. If you want to go down that road you're going to get the same in response.

No... I insulted you...

There is a difference. Ad-hominem a type of argument where you state that the other person's argument is false based upon the fallacy ad-hominem which is attacking their charactor.

I just called you names, but I wasn't claiming that your being a jackass made your arguments invalid.

So... I call you names because I like deriding you... you call me names as a false way to present an argument.

Joy

10-23-2009, 03:03 PM

Sargasm

10-23-2009, 03:04 PM

Thank you. See Eean, this is what an intellectual honest liberal response looks like.

I honestly believe that Obama was right on. :)

dave

10-23-2009, 03:04 PM

What is my goal again?

:popcorn:

Sargasm

10-23-2009, 03:06 PM

Eean, the difference between your ad-hominem ( a term you keep repeating in order to prove to everyone how educated you are in debate and logic, btw) and Verbal's ...frequent use of such, is that Verbal goes on to explain himself coherently and to point out fallacies and quotes and other info that shows us exactly where he got what and how he came to his conclusions. He does his own fact checking.

You just spout off and then tell people to get educated, like you are, so that they can suddenly be like you...

No.

I do it because I enjoy finding out what makes someone argue how they do.

It's a psychological game, it's predatory, it is unhealthy and fun. People don't have to like me... I have plenty of conversations that aren't about this kind of crap.

I guess it is kind of shitting where I eat... because I come here to have actual intelligent conversations too.

But yeah, I'm not really trying to impress anyone.

Joy

10-23-2009, 03:08 PM

Erik Mitchell

10-23-2009, 03:11 PM

I'm definitely not reading the last 7 pages of this thread.

dave

10-23-2009, 03:12 PM

i only have 6 pages still....

:)

Sargasm

10-23-2009, 03:12 PM

Whatever, you know me well enough to know that I am not intentionally discrediting you by diagnosing you online. You are really just proving me right over and over by your response to such a claim. Sorry. You have so much potential to help other people see you point of view. I *know* you are very very smart. But you aren't really convincing anyone of anything here.

Haven't I said the same to Verbal on the other board? (Verbal is Dispute... right?)

I'm not really trying to prove how smart I am.

It's a game to me. I figure out why people argue and have fun with it. If I am talking with someone that has the ability to reason through a problem and see from my point of view, then I have an interaction.

At those times, I'm more passive and I ask more questions.

But generally people that think they're right on the internet just do one thing, confirm they are right over and over and over again. When I run into that, I just like checking it and maybe getting them a little riled up. There isn't ANY point because when someone doesn't want to see from another point of view, they never will.

You have to desire to see someone else's point of view. It probably makes more sense for me to just avoid people that don't want to, but... it's just something I enjoy sometimes.

verbal138

10-23-2009, 03:13 PM

no, i haven't on either count. :)

Here you go:

"Mr. [Rupert] Murdoch has a talent for making money, and I understand that their programming is geared toward making money. The only argument [White House communications director] Anita [Dunn] was making (http://www.politico.com/blogs/michaelcalderone/1009/Dunn_slams_Fox_opinion_journalism_masquerading_as_ news.html) is that they’re not really a news station if you watch even — it’s not just their commentators, but a lot of their news programming.

"It’s really not news — it’s pushing a point of view. And the bigger thing is that other news organizations like yours ought not to treat them that way, and we’re not going to treat them that way. We’re going to appear on their shows. We’re going to participate but understanding that they represent a point of view.” Then a few hours later:

White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel said on CNN's "State of the Union" that Fox "is not a news organization so much as it has a perspective."

"It’s not so much a conflict with Fox News," Emanuel told John King. "I suppose the way to look at it and the way … the president looks at it, we look at it is: It’s not a news organization so much as it has a perspective. And that’s a different take. And more importantly, is not have the CNNs and the others in the world basically be led in following Fox, as if what they’re trying to do is a legitimate news organization …It's beyond dishonest to say Fox isn't news because they push a perspective when the NY Times, Huff Post, and MSNBC are given unfettered access and excluded from their declaration. True, every Presidential admin is going to give more access to groups that are favorable to his goals... but going out there and trying to discredit a news organization you don't agree with, in an intellectually dishonest manner, is quite a different thing.

What they did today with trying to exclude Fox's pool reporter is also ridiculous. The five networks (ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, & CNN) have shared those expenses for decades. They were going to make him available for a round robin interview session with the white house pool, but attempted to exclude Fox. I think it speaks for itself when the Exec heads of all of the other networks stood up for Fox and said, it's all or nothing. If this was business as usual, the other networks would not be stepping up to defend their competitor.

dave

10-23-2009, 03:13 PM

I'm not really trying to prove how smart I am.

It's a game to me. I figure out why people argue and have fun with it. If I am talking with someone that has the ability to reason through a problem and see from my point of view, then I have an interaction.

At those times, I'm more passive and I ask more questions.

But generally people that think they're right on the internet just do one thing, confirm they are right over and over and over again. When I run into that, I just like checking it and maybe getting them a little riled up. There isn't ANY point because when someone doesn't want to see from another point of view, they never will.

You have to desire to see someone else's point of view. It probably makes more sense for me to just avoid people that don't want to, but... it's just something I enjoy sometimes.

even when you are patently incorrect, it seems....

:)

Sargasm

10-23-2009, 03:14 PM

even when you are patently incorrect, it seems....

:)

Yeah... Well I found the source of your opinion and found they recanted, but you're still right at least!

Joy

10-23-2009, 03:15 PM

I'm not really trying to prove how smart I am.

It's a game to me. I figure out why people argue and have fun with it. If I am talking with someone that has the ability to reason through a problem and see from my point of view, then I have an interaction.

At those times, I'm more passive and I ask more questions.

But generally people that think they're right on the internet just do one thing, confirm they are right over and over and over again. When I run into that, I just like checking it and maybe getting them a little riled up. There isn't ANY point because when someone doesn't want to see from another point of view, they never will.

You have to desire to see someone else's point of view. It probably makes more sense for me to just avoid people that don't want to, but... it's just something I enjoy sometimes.

And I am trying to tell you that you misjudged the people in this thread and could have had an interaction. You misjudged them completely.

Sargasm

10-23-2009, 03:15 PM

even when you are patently incorrect, it seems....

:)

You do see the irony in the post you quoted and your response right?

Cause its there.

Sargasm

10-23-2009, 03:16 PM

And I am trying to tell you that you misjudged the people in this thread and could have had an interaction. You misjudged them completely.

I suppose anything is possible.

dave

10-23-2009, 03:17 PM

Yeah... Well I found the source of your opinion and found they recanted, but you're still right at least!

no, you found a source onthe same outlet for additional research...

the person i heard speak was an attorney.....

and that additional research revealed that it could have been a pretty big Constitutional Issue, had it gone down as the WH had initially proposed...

but here's a :cheer2: to help stroke your ego anyway...

Sargasm

10-23-2009, 03:18 PM

no, you found the source for additional research...

and that additional research revealed that it could have been a pretty big Constitutional Issue, had it gone down as the WH had initially proposed...

but here's a :cheer2: to help stroke your ego anyway...

^^^ see joy... he's the same way.

dave

10-23-2009, 03:20 PM

i did not hear ken rudin from political junkie make the observation....
as you had assumed...

it was some attorney

Joy

10-23-2009, 03:21 PM

I suppose anything is possible.

How gracious of you.

Sargasm

10-23-2009, 03:22 PM

Joy

10-23-2009, 03:25 PM

^^^ see joy... he's the same way.

He most certainly is not.

Look, I do not have popular views on a couple subjects but there are a few people on here who are respectful enough to still have decent conversations, *interaction*, with me despite their differing opinions. Dave is one of those people and I do not appreciate the turn this conversation took when you jumped in.

I learn a lot from you guys and I would love it if differing views could continue to be presented in ways that allow me to make opinions on the subject matter vs the people representing those views... :)

verbal138

10-23-2009, 03:27 PM

No... I insulted you...

There is a difference. Ad-hominem a type of argument where you state that the other person's argument is false based upon the fallacy ad-hominem which is attacking their charactor.

I just called you names, but I wasn't claiming that your being a jackass made your arguments invalid.

So... I call you names because I like deriding you... you call me names as a false way to present an argument.

Haha, now you think you understand informal fallacies? Classic. First off, ad hominem simply means "against the person". Ad hominem attacks is absolutely a valid statement, it simply means you're attacking one's person. Now, an ad hominem argument is another thing. But let's backtrack and see what was said to prove how little you understand this;

I said:

That's because you spout off on issues you don't understand. An intelligent person would research the topic at hand before making bold claims and accusations as you do... clearly you're not an intelligent person.

You said:

Yeah... well we know you can go ad-hominem without going to witness what someone else's argument is based on.

So... you're a real winner.

You never said ad hominem argument, I'm not responsible to make assumptions because you're ignorant and can't make a complete statement.

Now as far as the Ad hominem fallacy, that's not what I've done at all. The ad hominem fallacy is committed when I attack your person to discredit your point. That's not what I've done at all. My point is that you are uneducated and an uninformed person and spout off before understanding the issue. That's the argument I made above, that provoked your ridiculous response.

With respect to the overall issue (Obama vs Fox), you're not wrong because you're an idiot, you're wrong for all of the reasons I listed... I just can't help pointing out what an idiot you are along the way.

Joy

10-23-2009, 03:29 PM

That was a really nice thing to say.

Thank you. I appreciate it.

I just don't necessarily think this is the venue for anyone to help anyone with that different of an opinion see my point of view.

Maybe I'm wrong and they would have been open to having their minds changed and been open to seeing new info if I hadn't been so blunt about things. It is possible. Regardless I appreciate the sentiment.

You appreciate that I know how smart you are?

*Any* time you have the opportunity to encounter people with a different view than you own, you should *always* go in looking to present your view humbly and openly in order to at the very least come to a better understanding together.

It serves *no purpose* to fight and demean others. This board is public and many people lurk and are making their own decisions based on conversations they read on boards like these. I am one of those people.

verbal138

10-23-2009, 03:35 PM

It's a psychological game, it's predatory, it is unhealthy and fun.

haha... it's predatory??? lol oh dear god this is priceless. So, proving to everyone how uneducated you are, and how ignorant you are, is "predatory"? Did you ever stop to realize that you're the one being toyed with here? I've been punking out uninformed people like yourself for over a decade, on these co. rave/club type boards. It's hilarious and I enjoy it immensely.

...allthough, clearly I'm giving you too much credit. You're not smart enough to realize you're the joke here.

verbal138

10-23-2009, 03:39 PM

Haven't I said the same to Verbal on the other board? (Verbal is Dispute... right?)

Or more precisely, Dispute is Verbal. :) This was my board name long before I joined Unnet. I only did dispute because I was throwing a lot of parties back then, and I was promoting them on here.

dave

10-23-2009, 03:40 PM

He most certainly is not.

Look, I do not have popular views on a couple subjects but there are a few people on here who are respectful enough to still have decent conversations, *interaction*, with me despite their differing opinions. Dave is one of those people and I do not appreciate the turn this conversation took when you jumped in.

I learn a lot from you guys and I would love it if differing views could continue to be presented in ways that allow me to make opinions on the subject matter vs the people representing those views... :)

thanks Joy...

i enjoy a bit of discourse also; even when i don't necessarily agree with folks...

it's a good way to 'keep it realz' IMHO

and the occasional troll, or someone exhibiting troll like tendencies, is to be expected... so i wouldn't worry too much about it....

Joy

10-23-2009, 04:01 PM

Or more precisely, Dispute is Verbal. :) This was my board name long before I joined Unnet. I only did dispute because I was throwing a lot of parties back then, and I was promoting them on here.

Either way I am glad you are here! ;)

Joy

10-23-2009, 04:04 PM

and the occasional troll, or someone exhibiting troll like tendencies, is to be expected... so i wouldn't worry too much about it....

Oh, I am not super worried about it. Eean and I know each other from a while ago so I kind of had a personal perspective on his method of discourse. That's all. :)

verbal138

10-23-2009, 04:11 PM

Again, here is what intellectually honest democrats/liberals are saying:

A White House (http://topics.politico.com/index.cfm/topic/WhiteHouse) effort to undermine conservative critics (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28532.html) is generating a backlash on Capitol Hill — and not just from Republicans (http://topics.politico.com/index.cfm/topic/Republicans).

“It’s a mistake,” said Rep. Jason Altmire, a moderate Democrat (http://topics.politico.com/index.cfm/topic/Democrats) from western Pennsylvania. “I think it’s beneath the White House to get into a tit for tat with news organizations.”

Altmire was talking about the Obama administration’s efforts to undercut Fox News (http://topics.politico.com/index.cfm/topic/FoxNews). But he said his remarks applied just the same to White House efforts to marginalize the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (http://topics.politico.com/index.cfm/topic/USChamberOfCommerce), a powerful business lobby targeted for its opposition to climate change legislation.

“There’s no reason to gratuitously piss off all those companies,” added another Democrat, Rep. Jim Moran of Virginia. “The Chamber isn’t an opponent.”

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28638.html

Math You

10-23-2009, 04:30 PM

Everyone seems to forget the heat that the Bush administration put on the New York Times when they disclosed the warrantless wiretapping program...

"Some in the press, in particular the New York Times, have made the job of defending against further terrorist attacks more difficult by insisting on publishing detailed information about vital national security programs."
- Dick Cheney

"If The New York Times decides that it is going to try to assume responsibility for determining which classified secrets remain classified and which don't, it ought to accept some of the obligations of that responsibility."
- Tony Snow

"I'm calling on the attorney general to begin a criminal investigation and prosecution of The New York Times, its reporters, the editors that worked on this, and the publisher."
- Rep Peter King

In fact, the house went so far as to pass a resolution condemning the New York Times (2006 HR 895). And there have been many many more criticisms of the media by the GOP, but do it to FOX news and my god, cry me a river.

dave

10-23-2009, 04:36 PM

Another Congressman Steps Up for Fox News; Cites MRC’s Business & Media Institute

By Jeff Poor (Bio | Archive)
October 23, 2009 - 01:54 ET

Over the past couple of weeks, the White House has piled on the Fox News Channel, with a trio of high-ranking administration officials publicly criticizing it, followed by words from President Barack Obama himself about Fox News and topped off with the White House attempting to exclude Fox from the White House press pool. That has some members of Congress questioning why they are doing this..

Earlier, Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., took on the issue and defended Fox and its audience. However, Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, also took on the White House and questioned why it would be something Obama and his administration should be concerned with in comments from the floor of the House of Representatives on Oct. 20.

"Mr. Speaker, with unemployment at a 26-year high, a record budget deficit and a looming health care bill that punishes taxpayers and bankrupts the government, what is the White House doing? They are attacking Fox News for telling the truth. The White House spokesman says that Fox News is quote, ‘not a news organization,' end quote. We need to fact check the White House on whatever they say about Fox and any legislation since they are not being straight with the American people."

The Texas Republican cited two independent studies that showed Fox News was balanced. One study was by the Pew Research Center about the 2008 presidential campaign and the other from the Center for Media and Public Affairs, which took a look at the run-up to the 2008 presidential primaries.

"Separate studies by the Pew Research Center and the Center for Media and Public Affairs found that Fox News coverage is more balanced than any other network. The White House has no problem with other national news outlets because they offer biased reports and give the administration a free pass.

However, Smith also noted a recent report put out by the Media Research Center's Business & Media Institute in July that found stories on ABC, CBS and NBC favored proponents of Obama's brand of so-called health care reform to its critics by a margin of more than 2-to-1 (243 to 104).

"In fact, network news programs have favored proponents of the administration's health care proposal over critics of the plan by a margin of more than 2-to-1, according to the Business & Media Institute," Smith said. "The White House, like the national media, should let the American people make up their own minds - not try to control what they hear."

source ->
newsbusters.org/blogs/jeff-poor/2009/10/23/another-congressman-steps-fox-news-cites-mrc-s-business-media-institute