BOB WOODWARD: Obama Is Showing 'A Kind Of Madness I Haven't Seen In A Long Time'

[Anonymous]

What did Obama say again? That if a Republican congressman is not punished by Fox News and Rush Limbaugh for working with a Democrat, than more of them would be doing it?

So if Fox News and Rush Limbaugh would not say what it does, then Republicans would work more with Dems, right? Per Obama, right?

Damn Fox News. Damn Rush Limbaugh. If they'd just shut the hell up, he could have his way.

What is he, FOUR?

[Anonymous]

The vendetta, my dear Jeff, is evidenced in all the other articles folks posted regarding his administration. Unless you are suggesting that Obama has no control over his own administration and they are saying things that don't reflect the White House viewpoint?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:The vendetta, my dear Jeff, is evidenced in all the other articles folks posted regarding his administration. Unless you are suggesting that Obama has no control over his own administration and they are saying things that don't reflect the White House viewpoint?

I agree that Obama criticized Fox. I agree that he pointed out negative consequences of Fox's attacks on Republican Congressmen. But, those are not the allegations that you made. You said that Obama said that Fox shouldn't be allowed to say what it does. If you cannot provide support for your allegation, you need to withdraw it and admit that it was wrong. Put up or shut up.

[Anonymous]

Go Jeff!

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The vendetta, my dear Jeff, is evidenced in all the other articles folks posted regarding his administration. Unless you are suggesting that Obama has no control over his own administration and they are saying things that don't reflect the White House viewpoint?

I agree that Obama criticized Fox. I agree that he pointed out negative consequences of Fox's attacks on Republican Congressmen. But, those are not the allegations that you made. You said that Obama said that Fox shouldn't be allowed to say what it does. If you cannot provide support for your allegation, you need to withdraw it and admit that it was wrong. Put up or shut up.

Sure it is. You just want to twist what even CNN is saying he did. Why are there negative consequences? What you are actually saying is that if Fox and Rush didn't say what they did, there would be no negative consequences to their words, right?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The vendetta, my dear Jeff, is evidenced in all the other articles folks posted regarding his administration. Unless you are suggesting that Obama has no control over his own administration and they are saying things that don't reflect the White House viewpoint?

I agree that Obama criticized Fox. I agree that he pointed out negative consequences of Fox's attacks on Republican Congressmen. But, those are not the allegations that you made. You said that Obama said that Fox shouldn't be allowed to say what it does. If you cannot provide support for your allegation, you need to withdraw it and admit that it was wrong. Put up or shut up.

Sure it is. You just want to twist what even CNN is saying he did. Why are there negative consequences? What you are actually saying is that if Fox and Rush didn't say what they did, there would be no negative consequences to their words, right?

Wow, apparently you were not moving your lips when reading the last several posts. Let me walk you through this. I'll try to go slowly:

1) The "negative consequences" are the result of Fox's attacks on Republican members of Congress who cooperate with Obama;
2) Such "negative consequences" include increased opposition to those members of Congress among right-wingers and reduced interest among members of Congress in cooperating with Obama;
3) The "negative consequences" are a natural result of Fox's attacks, not something caused by Obama. Obama is merely the messenger pointing out the negative consequences".

Pointing out "negative consequences" is not a suggestion that that actions should not be allowed. If Obama were to call Speaker Boehner a "crybaby", many people might point out that this could cause negative consequences, namely, Boehner would cry. But, that does not mean that Obama should not be allowed to do this. Whether to call Boehner a crybaby or not would continue to be a choice that Obama could make. Just as Fox continues to have the right to attack Republican members of Congress who cooperate with Obama. Fox is free to do it and anyone else is free to point out the negative consequences of the attacks.

You are free to put up or shut up.

[Anonymous]

http://www.ibtimes.com/obama-doctrine-censuring-free-speech-798541

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The vendetta, my dear Jeff, is evidenced in all the other articles folks posted regarding his administration. Unless you are suggesting that Obama has no control over his own administration and they are saying things that don't reflect the White House viewpoint?

I agree that Obama criticized Fox. I agree that he pointed out negative consequences of Fox's attacks on Republican Congressmen. But, those are not the allegations that you made. You said that Obama said that Fox shouldn't be allowed to say what it does. If you cannot provide support for your allegation, you need to withdraw it and admit that it was wrong. Put up or shut up.

Sure it is. You just want to twist what even CNN is saying he did. Why are there negative consequences? What you are actually saying is that if Fox and Rush didn't say what they did, there would be no negative consequences to their words, right?

Wow, apparently you were not moving your lips when reading the last several posts. Let me walk you through this. I'll try to go slowly:

1) The "negative consequences" are the result of Fox's attacks on Republican members of Congress who cooperate with Obama;
2) Such "negative consequences" include increased opposition to those members of Congress among right-wingers and reduced interest among members of Congress in cooperating with Obama;
3) The "negative consequences" are a natural result of Fox's attacks, not something caused by Obama. Obama is merely the messenger pointing out the negative consequences".

Pointing out "negative consequences" is not a suggestion that that actions should not be allowed. If Obama were to call Speaker Boehner a "crybaby", many people might point out that this could cause negative consequences, namely, Boehner would cry. But, that does not mean that Obama should not be allowed to do this. Whether to call Boehner a crybaby or not would continue to be a choice that Obama could make. Just as Fox continues to have the right to attack Republican members of Congress who cooperate with Obama. Fox is free to do it and anyone else is free to point out the negative consequences of the attacks.

You are free to put up or shut up.

Sure it is. It's free speech. And Obama thinks it has a negative impact on him doing his job. Now, you and I are free to say that but he is the President of the US and took an oath of office that stated his job was to uphold the Constitution. That means the First Amendment. By publicly commenting (over and over I might add) that Fox News, Limbaugh, Hannity, etc. are having a negative impact on him getting his job done, he is saying that Fox, Limbaugh, by exercising their right to free, is harming the country. That is simply his opinion, not fact.

He is attacking their right to free speech in this regard.

You feel this is not what he's doing, because you feel that Obama is correct, that "Faux News" in your opinion, IS lying to the people and therefore harming the country, and should be driven off the air.

Be careful - that tingle up your leg is clearly affecting your judgement.

Now, I will move on to bigger and better things. I feel I've proven my case, and there are others in this thread, in the media - left, right and balanced - that support the fact that Obama is indeed marginalizing certain individuals and news organizations. He and his administration are punishing them publicly for exercising their First Amendment rights because they don't agree with him. If this is fine with you, then all is good in your world. I'm just glad it's not me who thinks this is ok.

Have a good day

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The vendetta, my dear Jeff, is evidenced in all the other articles folks posted regarding his administration. Unless you are suggesting that Obama has no control over his own administration and they are saying things that don't reflect the White House viewpoint?

I agree that Obama criticized Fox. I agree that he pointed out negative consequences of Fox's attacks on Republican Congressmen. But, those are not the allegations that you made. You said that Obama said that Fox shouldn't be allowed to say what it does. If you cannot provide support for your allegation, you need to withdraw it and admit that it was wrong. Put up or shut up.

Sure it is. You just want to twist what even CNN is saying he did. Why are there negative consequences? What you are actually saying is that if Fox and Rush didn't say what they did, there would be no negative consequences to their words, right?

Wow, apparently you were not moving your lips when reading the last several posts. Let me walk you through this. I'll try to go slowly:

1) The "negative consequences" are the result of Fox's attacks on Republican members of Congress who cooperate with Obama;
2) Such "negative consequences" include increased opposition to those members of Congress among right-wingers and reduced interest among members of Congress in cooperating with Obama;
3) The "negative consequences" are a natural result of Fox's attacks, not something caused by Obama. Obama is merely the messenger pointing out the negative consequences".

Pointing out "negative consequences" is not a suggestion that that actions should not be allowed. If Obama were to call Speaker Boehner a "crybaby", many people might point out that this could cause negative consequences, namely, Boehner would cry. But, that does not mean that Obama should not be allowed to do this. Whether to call Boehner a crybaby or not would continue to be a choice that Obama could make. Just as Fox continues to have the right to attack Republican members of Congress who cooperate with Obama. Fox is free to do it and anyone else is free to point out the negative consequences of the attacks.

You are free to put up or shut up.

Sure it is. It's free speech. And Obama thinks it has a negative impact on him doing his job. Now, you and I are free to say that but he is the President of the US and took an oath of office that stated his job was to uphold the Constitution. That means the First Amendment. By publicly commenting (over and over I might add) that Fox News, Limbaugh, Hannity, etc. are having a negative impact on him getting his job done, he is saying that Fox, Limbaugh, by exercising their right to free, is harming the country. That is simply his opinion, not fact.

He is attacking their right to free speech in this regard.

You feel this is not what he's doing, because you feel that Obama is correct, that "Faux News" in your opinion, IS lying to the people and therefore harming the country, and should be driven off the air.

Be careful - that tingle up your leg is clearly affecting your judgement.

Now, I will move on to bigger and better things. I feel I've proven my case, and there are others in this thread, in the media - left, right and balanced - that support the fact that Obama is indeed marginalizing certain individuals and news organizations. He and his administration are punishing them publicly for exercising their First Amendment rights because they don't agree with him. If this is fine with you, then all is good in your world. I'm just glad it's not me who thinks this is ok.

Have a good day

Wow, I'm not one of the posters you are sparring with. But if you think that disliking someone's speech is the same thing as attacking the right to free speech, then you just don't get the First Amendment. I am sure that we can all agree that there is speech that is protected, yet is bad for the country. Racism, for example. Racist speech is bad for the country and yet we allow it.

Republicans of late seem to think that freedom of speech provides an entitlement to have that speech be accepted as reasonable. Sorry Charlie, Free Speech is a marketplace of ideas. Some sink, some swim.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:http://www.ibtimes.com/obama-doctrine-censuring-free-speech-798541

Okay, so now your complaint is that Obama thinks world leaders should speak out against individuals that desecrate images of Christ?

Obama must be the worst Kenyan, Muslim, Marxist in existence. He believes that leaders such as himself should speak out against attacks on Christianity. But, for his trouble, he is accused of not wanting to allow Fox News to say what it does. I don't know that Fox News routinely desecrates images of Christ. But, if it does, I certainly hope Obama will speak out against it. Of course, such conduct is legally protected and neither Obama nor anyone else should try to prevent Fox News from desecrating images of Christ. However, Obama and others are completely free to criticize Fox News in the event that Fox News desecrates an image of Christ.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

All this bloviating about Obama acting like Nixon is just silly. Frankly, I wish he would use some of the brass knuckles tactics of a JFK, LBJ or Nixon.

Like shut down every Federal contract, even post office, renovation in the gerrymandered House diistricts held by Teabagger Republicans. They want to cut government spending, show them some deep cuts.

Prosecute News Corp (parent of Fox News) for all the FCPA violations they committed in paying cops for news tips in the UK. Serious FCPA cases can cost big corporations into the 10-figures.

Audit every superpac masquerading as a "charitable" organization and their big donors. Have other federal agencies turn the microscope on them.

Audit the senior leadership and board of terror-abetting organizations like the NRA. Dawn raids to their homes looking for evidence of tax evasion would be a nice touch.

Pressure the insurance industry to require gun owners to pass an industry-mandated safety test and background check or lose their homeowners/liability policies.

Use the bank regulators and the antitrust agencies to break up the 'too big to fail' banks and bring some marqee prosecutions of Wal Stret crooks responsible for the financial crisis while there's still time.

That would be a start. :0

+1000 The only intelligent post on this thread.

Yes! It is starting to happen already. Sheldon Adelson's company, Las Vegas Sands disclosed in an SEC filing that it is likely they violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act in connection with their gaming business in Chima and Macau. Federal investigations are ongoing. Adelson is the right-wing businessman who kept the Gingrich campaign afloat forever and then bankrolled various GOP-supporting superpacs in the fall. Now it's clear why he was so desperate to elect a friendlier administration in 2012, one which would have goine easier on his business empire and its misdeeds.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/03/business/in-filing-casino-operator-admits-likely-violation-of-an-antibribery-law.html?ref=us&_r=0

Et tu, Rupert?!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The vendetta, my dear Jeff, is evidenced in all the other articles folks posted regarding his administration. Unless you are suggesting that Obama has no control over his own administration and they are saying things that don't reflect the White House viewpoint?

I agree that Obama criticized Fox. I agree that he pointed out negative consequences of Fox's attacks on Republican Congressmen. But, those are not the allegations that you made. You said that Obama said that Fox shouldn't be allowed to say what it does. If you cannot provide support for your allegation, you need to withdraw it and admit that it was wrong. Put up or shut up.

Sure it is. You just want to twist what even CNN is saying he did. Why are there negative consequences? What you are actually saying is that if Fox and Rush didn't say what they did, there would be no negative consequences to their words, right?

Wow, apparently you were not moving your lips when reading the last several posts. Let me walk you through this. I'll try to go slowly:

1) The "negative consequences" are the result of Fox's attacks on Republican members of Congress who cooperate with Obama;
2) Such "negative consequences" include increased opposition to those members of Congress among right-wingers and reduced interest among members of Congress in cooperating with Obama;
3) The "negative consequences" are a natural result of Fox's attacks, not something caused by Obama. Obama is merely the messenger pointing out the negative consequences".

Pointing out "negative consequences" is not a suggestion that that actions should not be allowed. If Obama were to call Speaker Boehner a "crybaby", many people might point out that this could cause negative consequences, namely, Boehner would cry. But, that does not mean that Obama should not be allowed to do this. Whether to call Boehner a crybaby or not would continue to be a choice that Obama could make. Just as Fox continues to have the right to attack Republican members of Congress who cooperate with Obama. Fox is free to do it and anyone else is free to point out the negative consequences of the attacks.

You are free to put up or shut up.

Sure it is. It's free speech. And Obama thinks it has a negative impact on him doing his job. Now, you and I are free to say that but he is the President of the US and took an oath of office that stated his job was to uphold the Constitution. That means the First Amendment. By publicly commenting (over and over I might add) that Fox News, Limbaugh, Hannity, etc. are having a negative impact on him getting his job done, he is saying that Fox, Limbaugh, by exercising their right to free, is harming the country. That is simply his opinion, not fact.

He is attacking their right to free speech in this regard.

You feel this is not what he's doing, because you feel that Obama is correct, that "Faux News" in your opinion, IS lying to the people and therefore harming the country, and should be driven off the air.

Be careful - that tingle up your leg is clearly affecting your judgement.

Now, I will move on to bigger and better things. I feel I've proven my case, and there are others in this thread, in the media - left, right and balanced - that support the fact that Obama is indeed marginalizing certain individuals and news organizations. He and his administration are punishing them publicly for exercising their First Amendment rights because they don't agree with him. If this is fine with you, then all is good in your world. I'm just glad it's not me who thinks this is ok.

Have a good day

Wow, I'm not one of the posters you are sparring with. But if you think that disliking someone's speech is the same thing as attacking the right to free speech, then you just don't get the First Amendment. I am sure that we can all agree that there is speech that is protected, yet is bad for the country. Racism, for example. Racist speech is bad for the country and yet we allow it.

Republicans of late seem to think that freedom of speech provides an entitlement to have that speech be accepted as reasonable. Sorry Charlie, Free Speech is a marketplace of ideas. Some sink, some swim.

We are talking about the President here, not just some citizen.

[Anonymous]

Did you know that sharing one's views with others has been shown to affect the dopamine centers in the human brain far more than listening to the view points of others.

Since Newton we have had to endure these right wing nut jobs on DCUM. Its a mistake to think that they are interested in debate. they are simply addicted ( re: emotionally and cognitively addicted to) spewing garbage. The reason: because no one listens to them in real life.

I say just skip over their threads without commenting. Don't feed the beast.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The vendetta, my dear Jeff, is evidenced in all the other articles folks posted regarding his administration. Unless you are suggesting that Obama has no control over his own administration and they are saying things that don't reflect the White House viewpoint?

I agree that Obama criticized Fox. I agree that he pointed out negative consequences of Fox's attacks on Republican Congressmen. But, those are not the allegations that you made. You said that Obama said that Fox shouldn't be allowed to say what it does. If you cannot provide support for your allegation, you need to withdraw it and admit that it was wrong. Put up or shut up.

Sure it is. You just want to twist what even CNN is saying he did. Why are there negative consequences? What you are actually saying is that if Fox and Rush didn't say what they did, there would be no negative consequences to their words, right?

Wow, apparently you were not moving your lips when reading the last several posts. Let me walk you through this. I'll try to go slowly:

1) The "negative consequences" are the result of Fox's attacks on Republican members of Congress who cooperate with Obama;
2) Such "negative consequences" include increased opposition to those members of Congress among right-wingers and reduced interest among members of Congress in cooperating with Obama;
3) The "negative consequences" are a natural result of Fox's attacks, not something caused by Obama. Obama is merely the messenger pointing out the negative consequences".

Pointing out "negative consequences" is not a suggestion that that actions should not be allowed. If Obama were to call Speaker Boehner a "crybaby", many people might point out that this could cause negative consequences, namely, Boehner would cry. But, that does not mean that Obama should not be allowed to do this. Whether to call Boehner a crybaby or not would continue to be a choice that Obama could make. Just as Fox continues to have the right to attack Republican members of Congress who cooperate with Obama. Fox is free to do it and anyone else is free to point out the negative consequences of the attacks.

You are free to put up or shut up.

Sure it is. It's free speech. And Obama thinks it has a negative impact on him doing his job. Now, you and I are free to say that but he is the President of the US and took an oath of office that stated his job was to uphold the Constitution. That means the First Amendment. By publicly commenting (over and over I might add) that Fox News, Limbaugh, Hannity, etc. are having a negative impact on him getting his job done, he is saying that Fox, Limbaugh, by exercising their right to free, is harming the country. That is simply his opinion, not fact.

He is attacking their right to free speech in this regard.

You feel this is not what he's doing, because you feel that Obama is correct, that "Faux News" in your opinion, IS lying to the people and therefore harming the country, and should be driven off the air.

Be careful - that tingle up your leg is clearly affecting your judgement.

Now, I will move on to bigger and better things. I feel I've proven my case, and there are others in this thread, in the media - left, right and balanced - that support the fact that Obama is indeed marginalizing certain individuals and news organizations. He and his administration are punishing them publicly for exercising their First Amendment rights because they don't agree with him. If this is fine with you, then all is good in your world. I'm just glad it's not me who thinks this is ok.

Have a good day

Wow, I'm not one of the posters you are sparring with. But if you think that disliking someone's speech is the same thing as attacking the right to free speech, then you just don't get the First Amendment. I am sure that we can all agree that there is speech that is protected, yet is bad for the country. Racism, for example. Racist speech is bad for the country and yet we allow it.

Republicans of late seem to think that freedom of speech provides an entitlement to have that speech be accepted as reasonable. Sorry Charlie, Free Speech is a marketplace of ideas. Some sink, some swim.

We are talking about the President here, not just some citizen.

What kind of a leader would think that all opinions are equal?