Obama freezes unfriendly coverage

[Immanuel]

Here's a thought...

How do you know Obama was talking about FoxNews, if he didn't mention it by name, unless they resemble his remark?

Because it is evident that every other network literally fawns over him?

Immie

If you mean by "fawning all over him" that the rest of the media doesn't immediately attack every single thing the man says or does, then yeah I guess they do.

Of course I wouldn't call objective reporting "fawning".

What FoxNews produces is a constant criticism of every breath the President takes.

When the President takes his wife out for a nice night on the town, Fox tells us how much money is being "wasted".

When the President picks a dog, Fox is there to tell us that a "Real American" would have picked another breed.

When the President has a beer, Fox is there to tell us how the beer isn't "American enough".

When the President uses a restroom, Fox tells us how the smell is much, much worse than that of a "Real American".

According to Fox, whatever the President is doing at the moment must, by definition, be wrong.

Objective reporting? I wouldn't say either Fox or Obama's fan club (all the others) could be accused of objective reporting.

Immie

 

[Vast LWC]

Because it is evident that every other network literally fawns over him?

Immie

If you mean by "fawning all over him" that the rest of the media doesn't immediately attack every single thing the man says or does, then yeah I guess they do.

Of course I wouldn't call objective reporting "fawning".

What FoxNews produces is a constant criticism of every breath the President takes.

When the President takes his wife out for a nice night on the town, Fox tells us how much money is being "wasted".

When the President picks a dog, Fox is there to tell us that a "Real American" would have picked another breed.

When the President has a beer, Fox is there to tell us how the beer isn't "American enough".

When the President uses a restroom, Fox tells us how the smell is much, much worse than that of a "Real American".

According to Fox, whatever the President is doing at the moment must, by definition, be wrong.

Objective reporting? I wouldn't say either Fox or Obama's fan club (all the others) could be accused of objective reporting.

Immie

As I pointed out on another thread, besides MSNBC, which is as bad as FoxNews, none of the other networks can honestly be accused of favoritism.

And none of the other networks allow people to lie on the air like Fox and MSNBC do.

Dan Rather, for instance, was fired immediately when it was discovered he had based a claim on faulty evidence.

 

[Vast LWC]

...The Czar group? As a group they are poorly defined (in fact, it seems the media defines the term) and diverse. They also hold no real authority beyond advising, control and dispense no funds, and a number of them answer directly to congressionally approved appointees. What's your point?

My point is, you are not looking for liberals very hard.

POLITICO has compiled a wide-ranging list of President Barack Obama's various "czars." The bolded names were confirmed by Congress, and the italicized names are statutorily created positions created by Congress in legislation...

What does being a "Czar" have to do with left-wing radicalism?

Were all of Reagan and Bush's "Czars" radicals?

 

[Ame®icano]

No, he has not decided - but an ideologue would already have a decision - in fact, would be incapable of anything but one decision.

Uhm... correction.

Obama approves 13,000 more troops to Afghanistan

 

[Ame®icano]

He has not yet signed a healthcare bill./...but if you listen to his previous speeches (before November) he supports a single payer system and he went as far as saying that a public option will lead us to the single payer system.....and if you noticed in today's presser....Gibbs dodged the question about whether or not he wnats the public option in there.

That is actually misleading - or at best incomplete. Those statements were made six years ago, before he was even elected Senator. Once in office, and confronted with the realities of governance he has changed his opinion on single payer systems.

Ideology did not change, it's the same as it was when he said it. His goal is the same.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

"I’ve got one television station that is entirely devoted to attacking my administration... You’d be hard pressed if you watched the entire day to find a positive story about me on that front.” The BOY King...

ROFLMNAO...

If he's crying about ONE 'whole' network which simply presents a balanced view of the news of the day...

Just IMAGINE how he would have felt if he'd had had the ENTIRE NEWS MEDIA ATTACKING HIM... like Reagan and Bush had to deal with...


Hell, Reagan didn't even have Fox... NOR TALK RADIO!

As little brown fascist go... this tool is PATHETIC!

 

[Vast LWC]

Just IMAGINE how he would have felt if he'd had had the ENTIRE NEWS MEDIA ATTACKING HIM... like Reagan and Bush had to deal with...

Feel free to give us ONE clip of Reagan being called a "Nazi" by anyone in the media.

Or one example of Bush being called a "Nazi" by anyone in the media besides MSNBC.

 

[Ame®icano]

I know what "redistribution of wealth" means and I also know when a quote has gotten taken out of context and out of proportion.

It may be taken out of context few times, I agree.

But he was talking about redistribution of wealth since his Illinois senate days and he stayed at the same course ever since. I called that ideology... Maybe I am wrong?

Here is the interview with local radio station from 2001 where he's talking about redistribution of wealth thruout the judical branch...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck]YouTube - Obama Bombshell Redistribution of Wealth Audio Uncovered[/ame]

That's a pretty deceptive video - check out: Obama's Redistribution 'Bombshell' - Fact Checker

From the link:

"Maybe I am showing my bias here as a legislator as well as a law professor, but you know I am not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. You know the institution just isn't structured that way.... Any of the three of us sitting here could come up with a rationale for bringing about economic change through the courts. I think that, as a practical matter, that our institutions are just poorly equipped to do it."

I don't need Dobbs to tell me what it means. When istitution is not equipped to bring the change, you simply change the institution.

His SCOTUS pick shows pretty much what it means and how you do it.

 

[Vast LWC]

You people have been pushing this whole "left-wing" media crap for so long that you believe it yourselves.

The media is not "left-wing".

Murdoch's entire media empire, and just about all of radio, is seriously Right-Wing.

MSNBC, the New York Times, NPR and a few others are Left-Wing.

The rest of the media is in the middle.

 

[Ame®icano]

Back to the topic...

When "fairness doctrine", extention of the Patriot Act, Hate Crime bill etc., all come in place, you can kiss the freedom good bye. Freedom of speech and press will be suppressed and we become drones. The next step is our own thoughts will be silenced as well as our voices. We gonna read "American Pravda" (fairness) and we'll all agree to everything that government says.

 

[Father Time]

Just IMAGINE how he would have felt if he'd had had the ENTIRE NEWS MEDIA ATTACKING HIM... like Reagan and Bush had to deal with...

Feel free to give us ONE clip of Reagan being called a "Nazi" by anyone in the media.

Or one example of Bush being called a "Nazi" by anyone in the media besides MSNBC.

Or give us an example of a news channel organizing a political protest over issues that do not effect broadcasting.

 

[Vast LWC]

Or give us an example of a news channel organizing a political protest over issues that do not effect broadcasting.

Exactly.

 

[Immanuel]

If you mean by "fawning all over him" that the rest of the media doesn't immediately attack every single thing the man says or does, then yeah I guess they do.

Of course I wouldn't call objective reporting "fawning".

What FoxNews produces is a constant criticism of every breath the President takes.

When the President takes his wife out for a nice night on the town, Fox tells us how much money is being "wasted".

When the President picks a dog, Fox is there to tell us that a "Real American" would have picked another breed.

When the President has a beer, Fox is there to tell us how the beer isn't "American enough".

When the President uses a restroom, Fox tells us how the smell is much, much worse than that of a "Real American".

According to Fox, whatever the President is doing at the moment must, by definition, be wrong.

Objective reporting? I wouldn't say either Fox or Obama's fan club (all the others) could be accused of objective reporting.

Immie

As I pointed out on another thread, besides MSNBC, which is as bad as FoxNews, none of the other networks can honestly be accused of favoritism.

And none of the other networks allow people to lie on the air like Fox and MSNBC do.

Dan Rather, for instance, was fired immediately when it was discovered he had based a claim on faulty evidence.

I missed your comment on the other thread, but I would disagree. I think they all slant their "news" to fit their philosophy and the only one that is slanted opposed to the President is Fox. Of all of them, I would say that at the moment CNN is probably the least biased, but still biased. Those in the fan club, won't go after the President. Treating him with kid gloves is no different than slamming him for every little thing he does such as answering his cell phone while at the dinner table.

Immie

 

[saveliberty]

Or give us an example of a news channel organizing a political protest over issues that do not effect broadcasting.

Exactly.

Define news channel. They are all newsertainment to some degree. They all determine what is news for that given period of time. CNN and HLN have entertainment shows. All the Sunday talk shows have agendas. What is all the pink on sports and many other places on TV? It is breast cancer awareness.

If you are suggesting a separation of state and media, you have a little problem with that pesky Constitution. Even CSPAN has authors on it who spout their take on politics. If you have a problem with a point of view change the channel or do your homework and find out what is really going on. You might try multiple sources of your information. I usually start with HLN in the morning. Nightly news is NBC and if I smell a rat, Fox News.

 

[Father Time]

Or give us an example of a news channel organizing a political protest over issues that do not effect broadcasting.

Exactly.

Define news channel. They are all newsertainment to some degree. They all determine what is news for that given period of time. CNN and HLN have entertainment shows. All the Sunday talk shows have agendas. What is all the pink on sports and many other places on TV? It is breast cancer awareness.

If you are suggesting a separation of state and media, you have a little problem with that pesky Constitution. Even CSPAN has authors on it who spout their take on politics. If you have a problem with a point of view change the channel or do your homework and find out what is really going on. You might try multiple sources of your information. I usually start with HLN in the morning. Nightly news is NBC and if I smell a rat, Fox News.

I was just trying to refute the idea that Fox News is 'fair and balanced'.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Back to the topic...

When "fairness doctrine", extention of the Patriot Act, Hate Crime bill etc., all come in place, you can kiss the freedom good bye. Freedom of speech and press will be suppressed and we become drones. The next step is our own thoughts will be silenced as well as our voices. We gonna read "American Pravda" (fairness) and we'll all agree to everything that government says.

Sigh. Americano, you are already a drone. You drone on and on and on and on . . . zzzz.

 

[Ame®icano]

Back to the topic...

When "fairness doctrine", extention of the Patriot Act, Hate Crime bill etc., all come in place, you can kiss the freedom good bye. Freedom of speech and press will be suppressed and we become drones. The next step is our own thoughts will be silenced as well as our voices. We gonna read "American Pravda" (fairness) and we'll all agree to everything that government says.

Sigh. Americano, you are already a drone. You drone on and on and on and on . . . zzzz.

Unlike you, I don't rely on empty words of hope and change, but I do ask questions.

 

[Coyote]

He was voted the most liberal senator during his short reign. He surrounds himself with radicals. He is not a centrist at all. But he is a politician and he's going to have to compromise to get things done. Second term - if there is one, he push all the socialist crap he wants. He's prob telling the far left whackos "be patient comrades"

That's actually more reflective of talking points than accuracy.

The National Journal rated Obama the most liberal senator in 2007 - a rating based on 99 votes in the Senate during that year only. In the two previous two yearsthey rated Obama 10th and 16th most liberal.

If you are looking at his entire senate career his recod is far from "most liberal."

 

[Oldandtired]

He was voted the most liberal senator during his short reign. He surrounds himself with radicals. He is not a centrist at all. But he is a politician and he's going to have to compromise to get things done. Second term - if there is one, he push all the socialist crap he wants. He's prob telling the far left whackos "be patient comrades"

That's actually more reflective of talking points than accuracy.

The National Journal rated Obama the most liberal senator in 2007 - a rating based on 99 votes in the Senate during that year only. In the two previous two yearsthey rated Obama 10th and 16th most liberal.

If you are looking at his entire senate career his recod is far from "most liberal."

So then based on that logic, OJ Simpson should be viewed based on his previous years as a hall of famer and not his most recent actions.
Bernie Madoff was President of the NASDAQ and so let us evaluate him based on THAT tenure and not his most recent actions.
Me? 30 years ago as a college senior I was as liberal as they come....now I am a true conservative......but lets evaluate me on my past on not the present...so I must be a liberal.

Sorry...I see flaws in your logic

 

[Coyote]

He was voted the most liberal senator during his short reign. He surrounds himself with radicals. He is not a centrist at all. But he is a politician and he's going to have to compromise to get things done. Second term - if there is one, he push all the socialist crap he wants. He's prob telling the far left whackos "be patient comrades"

That's actually more reflective of talking points than accuracy.

The National Journal rated Obama the most liberal senator in 2007 - a rating based on 99 votes in the Senate during that year only. In the two previous two yearsthey rated Obama 10th and 16th most liberal.

If you are looking at his entire senate career his recod is far from "most liberal."

So then based on that logic, OJ Simpson should be viewed based on his previous years as a hall of famer and not his most recent actions.
Bernie Madoff was President of the NASDAQ and so let us evaluate him based on THAT tenure and not his most recent actions.
Me? 30 years ago as a college senior I was as liberal as they come....now I am a true conservative......but lets evaluate me on my past on not the present...so I must be a liberal.

Sorry...I see flaws in your logic

No, the logic lapse is on your end. Madoff and Simpson should be evaluated on their entire career overall not just one part of it. But the criminal parts will largely define that evaluation because they are so overwelmingly negative.

What you have with Obama is 3 years in a Senate with 3 different rankings of "liberal" that should be averaged if you are going to make the claim of "most liberal senator" for his entire career not just 2007.

I am not arguing that he isn't "liberal" - I'm saying he is much closer to the center than rightwing pundits claim and this is evident in some of his policy decisions.