Mind Control of MSNBC, FOX and The Net

[Vast LWC]

In the meantime, here's a fun little example of Fox going off the deep end:

Fox News pundit suggests President ‘Mubarak Obama’ a dictator | Raw Replay

When the President refused to defend parts of the "Defense of Marriage Act", deeming them to be not part of the constitutionally mandated powers of the Federal Government, Monica Crowley of FoxNews had this to say:

“To me, it’ s a form of dictatorship. That’s Mubarak Obama."

Yes. Not enforcing a law because it would be Federal overreaching is obviously "dictatorship".

Now that's a fine bit of Orwellian logic. Freedom is obviously Slavery.

 

[Wiseacre]

In the meantime, here's a fun little example of Fox going off the deep end:

Fox News pundit suggests President ‘Mubarak Obama’ a dictator*|*Raw Replay

When the President refused to defend parts of the "Defense of Marriage Act", deeming them to be not part of the constitutionally mandated powers of the Federal Government, Monica Crowley of FoxNews had this to say:

“To me, it’ s a form of dictatorship. That’s Mubarak Obama."

Yes. Not enforcing a law because it would be Federal overreaching is obviously "dictatorship".

Now that's a fine bit of Orwellian logic. Freedom is obviously Slavery.

So, you got a problem with somebody expressing their opinion? Frankly, I don't like the law myself, but Obama's sworn duty is to uphold the constitution and the laws of the land. He doesn't get to pick which ones to enforce; the SCOTUS decides which laws should be enforceable, not the president. So in effect Obama is deliberately usurping both the powers of the Congress and the Supreme Court. Isn't that kinda what dictators do?

 

[Vast LWC]

So, you got a problem with somebody expressing their opinion? Frankly, I don't like the law myself, but Obama's sworn duty is to uphold the constitution and the laws of the land. He doesn't get to pick which ones to enforce; the SCOTUS decides which laws should be enforceable, not the president. So in effect Obama is deliberately usurping both the powers of the Congress and the Supreme Court. Isn't that kinda what dictators do?

I don't have a problem with anyone expressing their opinion, but I reserve the right to ridicule them when they say something crazy.

Obama was not "usurping" anyone's power, he was simply not doing something that he considered to be illegal for him to do.

The Federal Government does not have the power to define marriage. That power is not in any way enumerated in the Constitution. Therefore, when faced with the choice of enforcing an illegal legislation, or not acting, he chose to not act.

That is obviously not the action of a "dictator", by any means. Quite the opposite in fact.

The only way he could be "usurping the power of the Supreme court is if he enforced a law that the Supreme Court had deemed unconstitutional. As far as I know, the Supreme Court has made no ruling on the legality of DoMA.

Since several lower courts, however, have in fact ruled that DoMA is unconstitutional. It was especially "non-dictator-like" for the president to not enforce an Act that may be unconstitutional, until it is ruled upon by the Supreme Court.

 

[Vast LWC]

To sum up:

A dictator errs on the side of enforcing federal power.

If you err on the side of individual freedom, you are specifically NOT being a dictator.

 

[Synthaholic]

So, you got a problem with somebody expressing their opinion? Frankly, I don't like the law myself, but Obama's sworn duty is to uphold the constitution and the laws of the land. He doesn't get to pick which ones to enforce; the SCOTUS decides which laws should be enforceable, not the president. So in effect Obama is deliberately usurping both the powers of the Congress and the Supreme Court. Isn't that kinda what dictators do?

I don't have a problem with anyone expressing their opinion, but I reserve the right to ridicule them when they say something crazy.

Obama was not "usurping" anyone's power, he was simply not doing something that he considered to be illegal for him to do.

The Federal Government does not have the power to define marriage. That power is not in any way enumerated in the Constitution. Therefore, when faced with the choice of enforcing an illegal legislation, or not acting, he chose to not act.

That is obviously not the action of a "dictator", by any means. Quite the opposite in fact.

The only way he could be "usurping the power of the Supreme court is if he enforced a law that the Supreme Court had deemed unconstitutional. As far as I know, the Supreme Court has made no ruling on the legality of DoMA.

Since several lower courts, however, have in fact ruled that DoMA is unconstitutional. It was especially "non-dictator-like" for the president to not enforce an Act that may be unconstitutional, until it is ruled upon by the Supreme Court.

You also reserve the right to criticize a "news" organization that would give airtime to people with wacko opinions.

 

[Vast LWC]

You also reserve the right to criticize a "news" organization that would give airtime to people with wacko opinions.

Yes, yes I do

 

[BDBoop]

In the meantime, here's a fun little example of Fox going off the deep end:

Fox News pundit suggests President ‘Mubarak Obama’ a dictator*|*Raw Replay

When the President refused to defend parts of the "Defense of Marriage Act", deeming them to be not part of the constitutionally mandated powers of the Federal Government, Monica Crowley of FoxNews had this to say:

“To me, it’ s a form of dictatorship. That’s Mubarak Obama."

Yes. Not enforcing a law because it would be Federal overreaching is obviously "dictatorship".

Now that's a fine bit of Orwellian logic. Freedom is obviously Slavery.

And people think I need to watch Fox so I can see .... yeah, I don't know why they think I need to watch Fox. I see what they say, and that's good enough for me.

 

[Vast LWC]

Best quote ever, by the way:

*"One of the real changes that comes when you start running for President -- as opposed to being an analyst on Fox -- is I have to actually know what I'm talking about. It's a severe limitation."
-Newt Gingrich

 

[Foxfyre]

In the meantime, here's a fun little example of Fox going off the deep end:

Fox News pundit suggests President ‘Mubarak Obama’ a dictator*|*Raw Replay

When the President refused to defend parts of the "Defense of Marriage Act", deeming them to be not part of the constitutionally mandated powers of the Federal Government, Monica Crowley of FoxNews had this to say:

“To me, it’ s a form of dictatorship. That’s Mubarak Obama."

Yes. Not enforcing a law because it would be Federal overreaching is obviously "dictatorship".

Now that's a fine bit of Orwellian logic. Freedom is obviously Slavery.

That is what you consider over the top??????? You wouldn't think it dictatorship if President Bush had announced that he didn't lie a law passed by Congress and refused to enforce it pending the appeal to a higher court? Really? PLEASE tell me you are not suggesting that a President, ANY President is not over the top when HE pronounces that a law, a law that passed both House and Senate by very large marjorities, is unconstitutional and therefore he won't enforce it?

Well I am definitely over the top then because I couldn't find a thing wrong with Monica's or Megyn Kelly's expressed opinion on that--she and Megyn are both lawyers and members of the bar--and in my opinion the President is constitutionally required to uphold the laws passed by the U.S. Congress. Otherwise it is a dictatorship and not a representative Republic. I wish she had chosen another adjective than "Mubarek"; however it was hardly insulting as the word means 'blessed'.

And the DOMA did NOT ban anybody from marrying anybody. All it did was provide those states that did not wish to recognize same sex marriage from another state the FREEDOM to to not recognize same sex marriage. It did not deny any state the right to pass legislation allowing same sex marriage. Freedom to not have to do something is sometimes just as important as the freedom to do something don't you think?

 

[Vast LWC]

That is what you consider over the top??????? You wouldn't think it dictatorship if President Bush had announced that he didn't lie a law passed by Congress and refused to enforce it pending the appeal to a higher court? Really? PLEASE tell me you are not suggesting that a President, ANY President is not over the top when HE pronounces that a law, a law that passed both House and Senate by very large marjorities, is unconstitutional and therefore he won't enforce it?

Well I am definitely over the top then because I couldn't find a thing wrong with Monica's or Megyn Kelly's expressed opinion on that--she and Megyn are both lawyers and members of the bar--and in my opinion the President is constitutionally required to uphold the laws passed by the U.S. Congress. Otherwise it is a dictatorship and not a representative Republic. I wish she had chosen another adjective than "Mubarek"; however it was hardly insulting as the word means 'blessed'.

And the DOMA did NOT ban anybody from marrying anybody. All it did was provide those states that did not wish to recognize same sex marriage from another state the FREEDOM to to not recognize same sex marriage. It did not deny any state the right to pass legislation allowing same sex marriage. Freedom to not have to do something is sometimes just as important as the freedom to do something don't you think?

Then you must have screamed and crowed about Bush being a dictator when he did the same thing on numerous occasions.

And DoMA was not unconstitutional because it banned people from marrying, the federal government doesn't have the right to overrule the states on that in the first place.

No, it was unconstitutional because it specifically defied Article IV Section 1 of the United States Constitution, which clearly states:

Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state.

The president swears an oath to defend the constitution on his very first day in office. Therefore, he cannot take an action that in his judgement specifically goes against that Constitution, and in this case several lower courts had already deemed the law unconstitutional.

Now, he didn't therefore go out and try to enforce the rights of gay married people in the states that didn't recognize it. THAT would be the act of a dictator.

Instead, he simply refused to enforce a law that would have a violation of his oath of office.

And you and I both know that she didn't mean "blessed", any more than a if she called Barney Frank "Gay", she would be referring as to how happy he was.

So, in summary, yes, her comment was WAY over the top. And she should have apologized for it.

 

[Foxfyre]

That is what you consider over the top??????? You wouldn't think it dictatorship if President Bush had announced that he didn't lie a law passed by Congress and refused to enforce it pending the appeal to a higher court? Really? PLEASE tell me you are not suggesting that a President, ANY President is not over the top when HE pronounces that a law, a law that passed both House and Senate by very large marjorities, is unconstitutional and therefore he won't enforce it?

Well I am definitely over the top then because I couldn't find a thing wrong with Monica's or Megyn Kelly's expressed opinion on that--she and Megyn are both lawyers and members of the bar--and in my opinion the President is constitutionally required to uphold the laws passed by the U.S. Congress. Otherwise it is a dictatorship and not a representative Republic. I wish she had chosen another adjective than "Mubarek"; however it was hardly insulting as the word means 'blessed'.

And the DOMA did NOT ban anybody from marrying anybody. All it did was provide those states that did not wish to recognize same sex marriage from another state the FREEDOM to to not recognize same sex marriage. It did not deny any state the right to pass legislation allowing same sex marriage. Freedom to not have to do something is sometimes just as important as the freedom to do something don't you think?

Then you must have screamed and crowed about Bush being a dictator when he did the same thing on numerous occasions.

And DoMA was not unconstitutional because it banned people from marrying, the federal government doesn't have the right to overrule the states on that in the first place.

No, it was unconstitutional because it specifically defied Article IV Section 1 of the United States Constitution, which clearly states:

Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state.

The president swears an oath to defend the constitution on his very first day in office. Therefore, he cannot take an action that in his judgement specifically goes against that Constitution, and in this case several lower courts had already deemed the law unconstitutional.

Now, he didn't therefore go out and try to enforce the rights of gay married people in the states that didn't recognize it. THAT would be the act of a dictator.

Instead, he simply refused to enforce a law that would have a violation of his oath of office.

And you and I both know that she didn't mean "blessed", any more than a if she called Barney Frank "Gay", she would be referring as to how happy he was.

So, in summary, yes, her comment was WAY over the top. And she should have apologized for it.

If you can find a clip or quotation from a reliable source (not a leftwing hate site) in which President Bush EVER said that he would not enforce a law passed by the U.S. Congress, then I would say he also was being a dictator. I am unaware that he ever did that.

 

[Vast LWC]

If you can find a clip or quotation from a reliable source (not a leftwing hate site) in which President Bush EVER said that he would not enforce a law passed by the U.S. Congress, then I would say he also was being a dictator. I am unaware that he ever did that.

Well, to start with, I'd direct you to take a look at the hundreds of "Signing statements" issued by the president to allow him to contradict or nullify laws or parts of laws, made by congress.

Signing statement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The signing statement associated with the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, prohibiting cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of detainees in U.S. custody, specifically proves my point:

"The executive branch shall construe... the Act, relating to detainees, in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power...."

In other words, "I'll do what I deem necessary, thank you very much."

Which (due to the fact that he was abusing his presidential power to oppress people, rather than to defend their individual rights) WAS in fact the act of a dictator.

But that's not what FoxNews said about it at the time, now was it?

 

[Wiseacre]

You also reserve the right to criticize a "news" organization that would give airtime to people with wacko opinions.

Yes, yes I do

Well great, knock yourselves out. But who gets to decide what's "wacko" and what's not? And tell me this, do you think a "news" organization should deny airtime to somebody based on their pov? As long as it's not hate speech or otherwise restricted by the laws of the land? Freedom of speech is a bitch when somebody says something you don't like, isn't it?

 

[Vast LWC]

Well great, knock yourselves out. But who gets to decide what's "wacko" and what's not?

For the purpose of me ridiculing them? Why, me of course.

And tell me this, do you think a "news" organization should deny airtime to somebody based on their pov? As long as it's not hate speech or otherwise restricted by the laws of the land? Freedom of speech is a bitch when somebody says something you don't like, isn't it?

There should never be any law created to force a news agency to deny airtime to someone due to their point of view.

However, again, I can ridicule a "news" agency when they make stupid-assed choices about who they do show.

So, let me ask you this:

If FoxNews had some guests on in the middle of the day, and they decided to start having sex on camera to make a point about free speech, and Fox aired it, would you approve, or would you criticize them for it?

 

[Wiseacre]

Well great, knock yourselves out. But who gets to decide what's "wacko" and what's not?

For the purpose of me ridiculing them? Why, me of course.

And tell me this, do you think a "news" organization should deny airtime to somebody based on their pov? As long as it's not hate speech or otherwise restricted by the laws of the land? Freedom of speech is a bitch when somebody says something you don't like, isn't it?

There should never be any law created to force a news agency to deny airtime to someone due to their point of view.

However, again, I can ridicule a "news" agency when they make stupid-assed choices about who they do show.

So, let me ask you this:

If FoxNews had some guests on in the middle of the day, and they decided to start having sex on camera to make a point about free speech, and Fox aired it, would you approve, or would you criticize them for it?

We're not talking about the law here, we're talking about criticism and whether it's fair or just to criticize Fox for airing different political opinions. Apparently you think it is, however I do not.

And if you can't see a major difference between political discourse and having sex on the air, then the value of your opinion kinda takes a hit. I wouldn't criticize them for the former, but would for the latter.

 

[Vast LWC]

We're not talking about the law here, we're talking about criticism and whether it's fair or just to criticize Fox for airing different political opinions. Apparently you think it is, however I do not.

And if you can't see a major difference between political discourse and having sex on the air, then the value of your opinion kinda takes a hit. I wouldn't criticize them for the former, but would for the latter.

Calling someone a dictator for someone that is pretty much the opposite of being a dictator is not a "political opinion", it is stupidity, and essentially lying.

I do not criticize Fox for airing "different political opinions". They can air their political opinions until the cows come home for all I care.

I criticize Fox for hypocrisy, lack of journalistic integrity, and lying. Just like I criticize MSNBC for the same.

And to me there is no moral difference between airing outright slander, and airing sex on the air. They are both distasteful, and are both not something I'd want my children to see.

 

[Foxfyre]

If you can find a clip or quotation from a reliable source (not a leftwing hate site) in which President Bush EVER said that he would not enforce a law passed by the U.S. Congress, then I would say he also was being a dictator. I am unaware that he ever did that.

Well, to start with, I'd direct you to take a look at the hundreds of "Signing statements" issued by the president to allow him to contradict or nullify laws or parts of laws, made by congress.

Signing statement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The signing statement associated with the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, prohibiting cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of detainees in U.S. custody, specifically proves my point:

"The executive branch shall construe... the Act, relating to detainees, in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power...."

In other words, "I'll do what I deem necessary, thank you very much."

Which (due to the fact that he was abusing his presidential power to oppress people, rather than to defend their individual rights) WAS in fact the act of a dictator.

But that's not what FoxNews said about it at the time, now was it?

FoxNews had a LOT to say about the treatment of detainees in U.S. custody and fully covered BOTH sides of that debate, with credible people making arguments for both sides, which you cannot say for any of the other cable news outlets. Also this was a matter of constitutional powers consistent with the Constitutionally mandated requirement that the Federal Government provide the common defense. Of course Bush haters interpreted those acts as the acts of a mad man and tyrant while the watchdogs on the scene expressed strong opinion that nobody was being mistreated by the administration or anybody else. So that is a different kind of debate.

There is plenty of ammunition to use to legitimately criticize President Bush, but I don't believe you will find any evidence that Presidemt George W. Bush ever took it upon himself to declare a Congressional law unconstitutional and refused to enforce it.

At any rate, Monica Crowley's opinion was certainly reasonable and I am guessing is shared by a majority of Americans. The President oversteps his authority when he presumes to decide whether or not a law is Constitutiional and whether he will enforce it.

 

[Vast LWC]

FoxNews had a LOT to say about the treatment of detainees in U.S. custody and fully covered BOTH sides of that debate, with credible people making arguments for both sides, which you cannot say for any of the other cable news outlets.

Again, in your opinion, which as we've discussed, is colored by the fact that you opinion of what constitutes "representatives from both sides" may be colored by FoxNews' interpretation of what constitutes "both sides".

And again, an avid viewer of MSNBC would say the exact same thing, with appropriate name substitutions.

Also this was a matter of constitutional powers consistent with the Constitutionally mandated requirement that the Federal Government provide the common defense. Of course Bush haters interpreted those acts as the acts of a mad man and tyrant while the watchdogs on the scene expressed strong opinion that nobody was being mistreated by the administration or anybody else. So that is a different kind of debate.

I am not debating the constitutionality of the situation, or anything about the situation in fact.

I am pointing out that Bush did the EXACT SAME THING, on a matter that he felt strongly about, with less of a constitutional basis than Obama had.

And his actions were meant to infringe the rights of others rather than to protect their rights, making his action MORE dictator-like than Obama's.

I am not saying Bush was actually a dictator for doing so. I'll leave such baseless accusations to the talking heads.

There is plenty of ammunition to use to legitimately criticize President Bush, but I don't believe you will find any evidence that Presidemt George W. Bush ever took it upon himself to declare a Congressional law unconstitutional and refused to enforce it.

He refused to enforce parts of a law, on constitutional grounds, using his interpretation of the constitution. That is EXACTLY what Obama did. There is not one iota of difference, except that Obama erred on the side of personal freedom, while Bush erred on the side of Federal power.

At any rate, Monica Crowley's opinion was certainly reasonable and I am guessing is shared by a majority of Americans. The President oversteps his authority when he presumes to decide whether or not a law is Constitutiional and whether he will enforce it.

Monica Crowley's opinion was certainly NOT reasonable, and I don't care if it was shared by 99% of the population, it is still a lie. Plain and simple.

To act to protect the Constitution by not enforcing an unjust, unconstitutional law is specifically NOT the act of a dictator.

Now, you can say the President was not doing his job. That is a fair criticism. In which case Congress could call him to task, and the matter would go to the supreme court for interpretation. But that is not "Being a Dictator", by any stretch of the imagination.

And comparing him to a brutal overlord who was fond of killing his own people because they were peacefully protesting is just icing on the cake.

 

[Wiseacre]

If you can find a clip or quotation from a reliable source (not a leftwing hate site) in which President Bush EVER said that he would not enforce a law passed by the U.S. Congress, then I would say he also was being a dictator. I am unaware that he ever did that.

Well, to start with, I'd direct you to take a look at the hundreds of "Signing statements" issued by the president to allow him to contradict or nullify laws or parts of laws, made by congress.

Signing statement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The signing statement associated with the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, prohibiting cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of detainees in U.S. custody, specifically proves my point:

"The executive branch shall construe... the Act, relating to detainees, in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power...."

In other words, "I'll do what I deem necessary, thank you very much."

Which (due to the fact that he was abusing his presidential power to oppress people, rather than to defend their individual rights) WAS in fact the act of a dictator.

But that's not what FoxNews said about it at the time, now was it?

FoxNews had a LOT to say about the treatment of detainees in U.S. custody and fully covered BOTH sides of that debate, with credible people making arguments for both sides, which you cannot say for any of the other cable news outlets. Also this was a matter of constitutional powers consistent with the Constitutionally mandated requirement that the Federal Government provide the common defense. Of course Bush haters interpreted those acts as the acts of a mad man and tyrant while the watchdogs on the scene expressed strong opinion that nobody was being mistreated by the administration or anybody else. So that is a different kind of debate.

There is plenty of ammunition to use to legitimately criticize President Bush, but I don't believe you will find any evidence that Presidemt George W. Bush ever took it upon himself to declare a Congressional law unconstitutional and refused to enforce it.

At any rate, Monica Crowley's opinion was certainly reasonable and I am guessing is shared by a majority of Americans. The President oversteps his authority when he presumes to decide whether or not a law is Constitutiional and whether he will enforce it.

Re Monica Crowley, when a president determines what laws should be enforced he has in fact overstepped his authority as you say. That act is dictatorial, not in keeping with the separation of powers as enumerated in the constitution. It is not lying, which is the spreading of disinformation. It is an opinion which you and I and many others share about Obama. And that opinion is absolutely reasonable and suitable for Fox to air.

If anyone disagrees with that opinion, fine. That's what freedom of speech is all about. But to criticize Fox for airing that opinion is baseless and smacks of censorship. Kudos Foxy, for sticking to your guns.

 

[Wiseacre]

" Monica Crowley's opinion was certainly NOT reasonable, and I don't care if it was shared by 99% of the population, it is still a lie. Plain and simple. "


So if 99% of the people agree with an opinion but you don't, it's a lie and unreasonable. Oookaaaay.