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

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:I
Did
Already

Where? All you need to do is paste the quote. Where is it? Put up or shut up.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about the New Republic quote do you not get? You keep ignoring the quote - to what end?

You've exposed who you are, which was also part of my goal here. You've exposed yourself as a man who thinks it's just fine for the President to target citizens of the US who don't share his opinion as enemies - seek and destroy.

OK Alinsky

Where is the quote? You keep talking about it, but where is it? Post it here. Quit dancing. Put up or shut up. Also, my words are in writing above. They are clear. Please stop misrepresenting them.

I did not misrepresent your words. In fact, I bolded them in the previous post. You were QUITE clear.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I
Did
Already

Where? All you need to do is paste the quote. Where is it? Put up or shut up.

Reading is fundamental.

It even has quote marks around it and is stated as an Obama quote. You are so busy asking for it, you missed it. Go back through this thread and look for the New Republic quote I posted already. It's there.

[Anonymous]

Wow. I am not the original poster, but this seems to fall into the Twilight Zone category. Sort of like Bush should be impeached for allowing the waterboarding of 3 terrorists-but it is perfectly okay for Obama to send drones which kill lots of civilians. Of course, this way we don't have to deal with prisoners.

Kind of like the semantics of the Fort Hood shooter--workplace violence-not terrorism.

Somehow, in my mind, retaliation against a media outlet who criticizes you (to the point of trying to eliminate then from the press pool)is much worse than words.

But, hey, it's free speech and you have the right to disagree.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I
Did
Already

Where? All you need to do is paste the quote. Where is it? Put up or shut up.

Reading is fundamental.

It even has quote marks around it and is stated as an Obama quote. You are so busy asking for it, you missed it. Go back through this thread and look for the New Republic quote I posted already. It's there.

Okay, I am going to illustrate exactly how dishonest you are.

Here is your statement:

"Then there is Obama himself, stating Fox and and conservative radio should not be allowed to say what they do."

Then you claim to have a "New Republic" quote that quotes Obama saying this. Here is that quote:

"Powers starts by quoting Obama’s recent diatribe to Chris Hughes of The New Republic (TNR) that "if a Republican member of Congress is not punished on Fox News ... for working with a Democrat on a bill of common interest, then you’ll see more of them doing it."

This quote is from Brietbart who is quoting Kirsten Powers who works at Fox News. This is not a quote of The New Republic. Then, what does Obama say? He is saying that Republican Congressmen don't cooperate with him because, if they do, they get attacked on Fox News. If Fox News would not attack Republicans, more of them would cooperate with them. He is not saying that Fox News should not be allowed to say what it does.

You have failed to support your allegation. You have mislead about the source of your claimed support for your allegation. The quote you provide as support does not say what you claim Obama said.

Put up or shut up.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Wow. I am not the original poster, but this seems to fall into the Twilight Zone category. Sort of like Bush should be impeached for allowing the waterboarding of 3 terrorists-but it is perfectly okay for Obama to send drones which kill lots of civilians. Of course, this way we don't have to deal with prisoners.

Kind of like the semantics of the Fort Hood shooter--workplace violence-not terrorism.

Somehow, in my mind, retaliation against a media outlet who criticizes you (to the point of trying to eliminate then from the press pool)is much worse than words.

But, hey, it's free speech and you have the right to disagree.

You are entitled to your opinion and all of us are free to disagree about whether a media organization that acts as a propaganda outlet should continue to be treated like a serious media organization. However, there are obvious differences between "not being allowed" to say something and "being treated differently" because you have said something. I think that not being allowed to speak is far worse than suffering repercussions for your speech. You, of course, are also free to disagree.

[Anonymous]

I think that not being allowed to speak is far worse than suffering repercussions for your speech. You, of course, are also free to disagree.




I do disagree. I think that the White House (and Anita Dunn) were trying to destroy Fox which would clearly prevent them from
speaking. She was trying to demonize them. Nothing wrong with criticism or pushing back --but the WH was trying to deny Fox the freedom of the press.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

I think that not being allowed to speak is far worse than suffering repercussions for your speech. You, of course, are also free to disagree.

I do disagree. I think that the White House (and Anita Dunn) were trying to destroy Fox which would clearly prevent them from
speaking. She was trying to demonize them. Nothing wrong with criticism or pushing back --but the WH was trying to deny Fox the freedom of the press.

There are any number of media organization in DC that are not allowed in the pool. Is the administration attempting to destroy them as well? There is no doubt that the Administration was trying to punish Fox News. I can understand that many might disagree with that. But, you are going overboard to suggest that they were trying to destroy Fox or denying Fox freedom of speech. But, even if you are correct, how can you argue that an attempt to deny freedom of speech is worse than actually denying freedom of speech?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I
Did
Already

Where? All you need to do is paste the quote. Where is it? Put up or shut up.

Reading is fundamental.

It even has quote marks around it and is stated as an Obama quote. You are so busy asking for it, you missed it. Go back through this thread and look for the New Republic quote I posted already. It's there.

Okay, I am going to illustrate exactly how dishonest you are.

Here is your statement:

"Then there is Obama himself, stating Fox and and conservative radio should not be allowed to say what they do."

Then you claim to have a "New Republic" quote that quotes Obama saying this. Here is that quote:

"Powers starts by quoting Obama’s recent diatribe to Chris Hughes of The New Republic (TNR) that "if a Republican member of Congress is not punished on Fox News ... for working with a Democrat on a bill of common interest, then you’ll see more of them doing it."

This quote is from Brietbart who is quoting Kirsten Powers who works at Fox News. This is not a quote of The New Republic. Then, what does Obama say? He is saying that Republican Congressmen don't cooperate with him because, if they do, they get attacked on Fox News. If Fox News would not attack Republicans, more of them would cooperate with them. He is not saying that Fox News should not be allowed to say what it does.

You have failed to support your allegation. You have mislead about the source of your claimed support for your allegation. The quote you provide as support does not say what you claim Obama said.

Put up or shut up.

Are you KIDDING? Look up the quote and interview. Widely available. It is Obama being quoted. Here. I'll do the hard work. Lol:
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/112190/obama-interview-2013-sit-down-president#

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wow. I am not the original poster, but this seems to fall into the Twilight Zone category. Sort of like Bush should be impeached for allowing the waterboarding of 3 terrorists-but it is perfectly okay for Obama to send drones which kill lots of civilians. Of course, this way we don't have to deal with prisoners.

Kind of like the semantics of the Fort Hood shooter--workplace violence-not terrorism.

Somehow, in my mind, retaliation against a media outlet who criticizes you (to the point of trying to eliminate then from the press pool)is much worse than words.

But, hey, it's free speech and you have the right to disagree.

Exactly.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Are you KIDDING? Look up the quote and interview. Widely available. It is Obama being quoted. Here. I'll do the hard work. Lol:
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/112190/obama-interview-2013-sit-down-president#

Where in that article does Obama say that Fox News should not be allowed to say the things it does? You made a very specific allegation which you have failed to support. Stop yourl dance of evasion, redirection, and lies.

How hard is it to paste a quote of Obama saying what you said he said? That should be easy. Otherwise, retract your allegation.

Put up or shut up.

[Anonymous]

Fox news does not report the news. It is an arm of the republican party. As such, it should not be treated as a news outlet. A lot of their "reporting" puts this country and our troops at risk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Fox news does not report the news. It is an arm of the republican party. As such, it should not be treated as a news outlet. A lot of their "reporting" puts this country and our troops at risk.

I have to wonder how their news people are allowed to give so much money to political parties, and the company itself gives so heavily to political parties. Even MSNBC basically fired Keith Olbermann over a relatively small political donation. And they are kind of the bottom of the barrel on the left.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Fox news does not report the news. It is an arm of the republican party. As such, it should not be treated as a news outlet. A lot of their "reporting" puts this country and our troops at risk.

It seems somewhat Stalinist to me to want news sources to only report your point of view. I tune into Fox and I read the Post. I am glad that MSNBC and the Times exist. I assume that the truth sometimes lies in between them all, but that if any were to vanish the lies and half truths would go challenged far less frequently.

[Anonymous]

Can you explain this? You mean like reporting on Benghazi? Reporting the news? Let's see, where did the leak come from about Seal Team Six killing bin Laden? Oh, yes, that would be from the White House........talk about putting our troops at risk. The Seals were pretty upset about this.
You mean like reporting on Fast and Furious CBS broke that story, but Fox was the only one that pursued it. Do you mean reporting the news that Benghazi was not a result of a video?
CNN found the memo that Stephens was worried about security--but Fox was the group that pursued it.

Tell me, please. Why is Fox the only news agency that criticizes the White House? Isn't that part of the job of the press? The fourth estate?

A lot of their "reporting" puts this country and our troops at risk.