A lot of their "reporting" puts this country and our troops at risk.
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.
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.
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#
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Anonymous wrote:I
Did
Already