Obama Represents, All The People ?

[nodoginnafight]

i watch fox news during the day as i have it on in my office.
I watch nbc news at dinnertime, (my sons teacher insists they watch nbc news every night)...
Sorry...i see a big difference in coverage. According to nbc news...it seems the war in a-stan ended on 1-20-09...seems no one has died there since 1-20-09.....it seems that no one showed up for the tea parties....and the acorn scandal was a right wing conspiracy and thus why was not treated as a story.

On fox news, i hear all about sanfords affair, all about the guy who brought his gun to a rally.....as well as the death toll in a-stan, the acorn scandal, etc.

Try it...you will like hearing all of the news.

i have tried it - and i rejected only hearing one - highly biased view point.
The only people who caqnnot admit the bias are those who share the bias.

on the news....or on a commentator's program?

both -

 

[Oldandtired]

i have tried it - and i rejected only hearing one - highly biased view point.
The only people who caqnnot admit the bias are those who share the bias.

on the news....or on a commentator's program?

both -

Well...as you said....

"The only people who cannot admit the bias are those who share the bias."

Same holds true for those that see the bias...and the same holds true for thoise that do not see the bias in NBC, CBS, ABC etc.

So you and I will never see eye to eye on the topic.

Yet...for some strange reason, both of us will sleep well tonight, get up in the morning and go to work.,.....watch our kids play football on Saturday...and very likely that may be me holding the door for you at the mall.

Interesting....no?

 

[nodoginnafight]

on the news....or on a commentator's program?

both -

Well...as you said....

"The only people who cannot admit the bias are those who share the bias."

Same holds true for those that see the bias...and the same holds true for thoise that do not see the bias in NBC, CBS, ABC etc.

So you and I will never see eye to eye on the topic.

Yet...for some strange reason, both of us will sleep well tonight, get up in the morning and go to work.,.....watch our kids play football on Saturday...and very likely that may be me holding the door for you at the mall.

Interesting....no?

Comforting. Honest, well-meaning, intelligent people CAN view the same evidence and arrive at a different verdict.

 

[Oldandtired]

both -

Well...as you said....

"The only people who cannot admit the bias are those who share the bias."

Same holds true for those that see the bias...and the same holds true for thoise that do not see the bias in NBC, CBS, ABC etc.

So you and I will never see eye to eye on the topic.

Yet...for some strange reason, both of us will sleep well tonight, get up in the morning and go to work.,.....watch our kids play football on Saturday...and very likely that may be me holding the door for you at the mall.

Interesting....no?

Comforting. Honest, well-meaning, intelligent people CAN view the same evidence and arrive at a different verdict.

Funny thing is every person I hold the door for on Saturday, I will think may be you...and every person that lets the door slam on your face, you will think may be me!

 

[Lumpy 1]

Maybe, possibly, who knows but if Obama graced Fox News and started representing their viewer ship his numbers just might change. In the meantime his poll number for representing All the American people remain on the low, low.



(Rasmussen Reports)
Just 30% of U.S. voters now think President Obama is governing in a bipartisan fashion, down 12 points from late January and the lowest such finding of his presidency.

30% Say Obama Is A Bipartisan President - Rasmussen Reports™

How can anyone honestly believe that Obama is a bipartisan President?

Why should he be?

Dear sweet Emma,
Once Obama was elected I'm fairly certain he promised to at least make the attempt to represent all the people, work in a bi-partisan way and let the sun shine in on what's going on with legislation and so forth. In fact I believe he promised to allow a 5 day waiting period before signing legislation into law but alas it wasn't to be.

Off subject I suppose,

Lets say that by answering only questions by the toaded media, he will receive only soft questions, no tough follow up questions and be allowed to go through his list of talking points unencumbered by resistance. Which is fine for his followers because then he looks good, and their faith is untested.

Now lets say he goes into the heated kitchen where he will be respected yet asked the tougher questions, given follow up questions and his metal and policies will be tested. If his policies can't take the heat or his answers don't stand up, aren't the people far better off ?

So your left with this vision, people who believe without question in all that Obama says on his policies and people that need to be convinced that his policies can take the heat. People that want him to always look good and people that want him to maybe fail or succeed by
stepping up to the plate.

( I think I'll use this in another thread)

 

[Fatality]

actually true, and i cant wait for conservatives to do it to the liberals and just trample them underfoot.

what on earth are you talking about? the republicans ALREADY did it.

oh, you think im talking about a political party, i see your error. im not talking about dumbocrat lap dogs like john mccain, olympia snow, and chuck hegal...so when the time comes, no compromise, just boot leather on their necks.

 

[Lumpy 1]

Maybe, possibly, who knows but if Obama graced Fox News and started representing their viewer ship his numbers just might change. In the meantime his poll number for representing All the American people remain on the low, low.



(Rasmussen Reports)
Just 30% of U.S. voters now think President Obama is governing in a bipartisan fashion, down 12 points from late January and the lowest such finding of his presidency.

30% Say Obama Is A Bipartisan President - Rasmussen Reports™

How can anyone honestly believe that Obama is a bipartisan President?

Please define "biparitsan" in the sense that you are using it, and provide evidence that Obama does not fit your definition.

Okay Doc, you got me......but can I get credit for close but no banana?....

 

[Lumpy 1]

Maybe when FoxNews starts representing all Americans

If you consider that their (FOX) viewer ship is more than double all the Obama managed media combined and he goes on those managed media outlets, I could only ask whats the harm, or is it fear?

 

[Oldandtired]

Maybe when FoxNews starts representing all Americans

If you consider that their (FOX) viewer ship is more than double all the Obama managed media combined and he goes on those managed media outlets, I could only ask whats the harm, or is it fear?

Said it twice today...now the thrid time...

Only President that ever attacked the media besides obama was Nixon.

Nixon had something to hide.

What does that tell ya?

 

[Charles Stucker]

Said it twice today...now the thrid time...

Only President that ever attacked the media besides obama was Nixon.

Are you sure? I could have sworn that when the Monica Lewinsky affair was being bandied about that Clinton attacked someone.
Oh right - that was Sarajevo.
With Bombs

Or am I mistaken and it was Afghanistan? All those places bombed and I can never keep them straight.

Sorry for doubting you O&T

 

[Emma]

Maybe when FoxNews starts representing all Americans

If you consider that their (FOX) viewer ship is more than double all the Obama managed media combined and he goes on those managed media outlets, I could only ask whats the harm, or is it fear?

Said it twice today...now the thrid time...

Only President that ever attacked the media besides obama was Nixon.

Nixon had something to hide.

What does that tell ya?

Hard to say...

The White House is staying on the offensive against media reports it considers misleading.

A day after White House counselor Ed Gillespie dispatched a sharply worded email letter to NBC News president Steve Capus about the editing in a weekend interview with President Bush, the administration has taken on the validity of another news account.

This time, it's a piece in the Jerusalem Post, which appeared on the Israeli paper's website under a headline stating that President Bush was planning a military attack on Iran before the end of his term. The story was prominently linked from the hugely popular Drudge Report.

Press Secretary Dana Perino distributed a statement this morning saying the article is "not worth the paper it's written on" and notes that the account "quotes unnamed sources - quoting unnamed sources." Shortly after Perino's statement came out, the Post updated its Web site to reflect the White House concerns.

Perino's comments marked the second time in as many days that the White House has taken the relatively rare step of pushing back against news organizations in public.

On Monday, the administration released the letter from Gillespie to NBC News, demaning that the network air a full interview between Bush and correspondent Richard Engel. At issue was Bush's response to a question about whether the president's "appeasement" remark in a speech before the Israeli Knesset last week was directed at Sen. Barack Obama.

Gillespie claimed that the editing of the was intentionally misleading - designed to give the impression that Bush agreed with the premise of the question to "further a media-manufactured storyline," something he called "utterly misleading and irresponsible." (To view the edited version of the interview, click here. To see the full interview, click here. Or, to read a transcript of the full interview, click here.)

Capus responded that the editing was appropriate, and that the full interview is available via the Internet.

Asked today whether the president told Gillespie to write the letter - which also charges that the opinions of MSNBC broadcasters are seeping into the NBC news division - Perino said the president "approved of the concept" but "did not review it before it went out."

"Frankly we were fed up" with a series of alleged transgressions, Perino said, including an NBC decision in late 2006 to begin referring to the situation in Iraq as a civil war.

Bush White House battles the media: The Swamp

First, the White House spoke out against NBC News and its editing of Richard Engel's interview with President George Bush.

And, today, the White House takes on the New York Times editorial page for its editorial, "Mr. Bush and the GI Bill."

Twice In One Week: The White House Goes After The Media - mediabistro.com: FishbowlDC

Bush administration officials -- who complain that reports about detainee abuse, clandestine surveillance and other topics have endangered the nation during a time of war -- have arguably taken a more aggressive approach than other recent administrations, including a clear willingness to take on journalists more directly if necessary.

"Almost every administration has kind of come in saying they want an open administration, and then getting bad press and fuming about leaks," said David Greenberg, a Rutgers University journalism professor and author of "Nixon's Shadow." "But it's a pretty fair statement to say you haven't seen this kind of crackdown on leaks since the Nixon administration."

White House Trains Efforts on Media Leaks - washingtonpost.com

JIM MIKLASZEWSKI reporting:

Good morning, Margaret. You know, in his news conference a few weeks ago, the President asked the media for a little help in getting out the good news about the economy. Frustrated, apparently, he's taken that frustration out on the road. It came at the end of a fund-raising speech in Detroit. Apparently frustrated by the beating he's taken in the polls, Bush unloaded on the media.

President GEORGE BUSH: Endless polls, weird talk shows, crazy groups every Sunday telling you what you think, 80--92 percent of the news on the economy being negative when the economy grew, admittedly slowly. It grew at 2.7 in the first quarter--92 percent negative. What kind of reporting is that?

MIKLASZEWSKI: Bush hammered the media throughout the day. Earlier, speaking to drug agents in New York, and lawmen in Detroit, Bush condemned record companies for rap songs about killing cops and TV violence in general.

http://icue.nbcunifiles.com/icue/files/nbcarchives/site/pdf/4944.pdf

And in the interest of fairness:

Clinton criticizes media for message; talk show hosts defend themselves, saying their programs mirror public opinion. | Article from Broadcasting & Cable | HighBeam Research


All just from a quick Google

 

[Emma]

Then of course, there's this:

Dan Quayle vs. Murphy Brown - TIME

 

[MikeHoncho]

the only people obama represents are his idiot followers. people who dont understand the constitution and the people who dont even understand the very rights he is trying to take away. people who dont care about their personal property probably because they dont value it, so they would rather him promise them a better life that they are envious of.

 

[Lumpy 1]

the only people obama represents are his idiot followers. people who dont understand the constitution and the people who dont even understand the very rights he is trying to take away. people who dont care about their personal property probably because they dont value it, so they would rather him promise them a better life that they are envious of.

Welcome there Mike, you deserved a thanks, for putting it out there and telling in no uncertain terms where you stand.......

 

[MikeHoncho]

why hide how i feel? if someone is attacking your personal property and proposing bills that want to take from me and give you someone else, why not call it like you see it. for one i dont condone that behavior from either side of the aisle. when i'm under assault from the very government that is suppose to defend my liberties but instead try to take them away.....yea sorry i have a problem with that.

 

[Emma]

Only President that ever attacked the media besides obama was Nixon.

Inspiring words from Thomas Jefferson:

"The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. But I should mean that every man should receive those papers and be capable of reading them." --- Thomas Jefferson to Edward Carrington, 1787.



But even ol' Tom changed his tune once in office.

"Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knowledge with the lies of the day." --- Thomas Jefferson to John Norvell, 1807.

"As for what is not true, you will always find abundance in the newspapers." --- Thomas Jefferson to Barnabas Bidwell, 1806.

"Our newspapers, for the most part, present only the caricatures of disaffected minds. Indeed, the abuses of the freedom of the press here have been carried to a length never before known or borne by any civilized nation." --- Thomas Jefferson to M. Pictet, 1803.

"During the course of [my] administration [as President], and in order to disturb it, the artillery of the press has been leveled against us, charged with whatsoever its licentiousness could devise or dare. These abuses of an institution so important to freedom and science are deeply to be regretted, inasmuch as they tend to lessen its usefulness and to sap its safety; they might, indeed, have been corrected by the wholesome punishments reserved and provided by the laws of the several States against falsehood and defamation; but public duties more urgent press on the time of public servants, and the offenders have therefore been left to find their punishment in the public indignation." --- Thomas Jefferson: 2nd Inaugural Address, 1805.

"[I have seen] repeated instances of the publication of what has not been intended for the public eye, and the malignity with which political enemies torture every sentence from me into meanings imagined by their own wickedness only... Not fearing these political bull-dogs, I yet avoid putting myself in the way of being baited by them, and do not wish to volunteer away that portion of tranquillity, which a firm execution of my duties will permit me to enjoy." --- Thomas Jefferson to John Norvell, 1807


"I deplore... the putrid state into which our newspapers have passed and the malignity, the vulgarity, and mendacious spirit of those who write for them... These ordures are rapidly depraving the public taste and lessening its relish for sound food. As vehicles of information and a curb on our funtionaries, they have rendered themselves useless by forfeiting all title to belief... This has, in a great degree, been produced by the violence and malignity of party spirit." --- Thomas Jefferson to Walter Jones, 1814.

 

[Lumpy 1]

why hide how i feel? if someone is attacking your personal property and proposing bills that want to take from me and give you someone else, why not call it like you see it. for one i dont condone that behavior from either side of the aisle. when i'm under assault from the very government that is suppose to defend my liberties but instead try to take them away.....yea sorry i have a problem with that.

works for me...!

 

[Emma]

the only people obama represents are his idiot followers. people who dont understand the constitution and the people who dont even understand the very rights he is trying to take away. people who dont care about their personal property probably because they dont value it, so they would rather him promise them a better life that they are envious of.

Ah, what the heck. I'll ask you what the right asked liberals over the last 8 years: what rights have you lost under this President (or that he's 'trying to take away')?

 

[Emma]

OldandTired, shall I go on? Heck, I'm quarantined for the next week, I've got nothing better to do

 

[MikeHoncho]

the only people obama represents are his idiot followers. people who dont understand the constitution and the people who dont even understand the very rights he is trying to take away. people who dont care about their personal property probably because they dont value it, so they would rather him promise them a better life that they are envious of.

Ah, what the heck. I'll ask you what the right asked liberals over the last 8 years: what rights have you lost under this President (or that he's 'trying to take away')?

i'm not saying just under this president. as i stated above i said BIG government. for example bills that get pushed through with "good intentions" there is a fine line with some of them. like the patriot act under bush. its a fine line for my safety because its for good intentions of finding terrorists before they can do any damage, but more importantly it infringes on my right to my property and the invasion of that very property.

obamas obsession with redistributing wealth. i dont care if it provides healthcare to everyone the moment the governement mandates me to buy anything, it should be thrown out. i dont care about giving health care to people who dont have it AT THE EXPENSE of whats mine. now dont take me out of context, that doesnt mean i'm opposed to healthcare reform, just the idea that i have to buy into something for the "collective good" sorry i'm about the welfare of my family and who i choose to help, not to be strong armed.