Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
These folk could (and have) heard Obama say something and then they will claim it was never said. Pick a topic, they've done it. Hysterical.

Next they will call you racist

Where is your source for Obama saying that Fox News shouldn't be allowed to say what it does? Put up or shut up.

There have been quite a few posters on this thread (including yourself) saying that Obama has a vendetta against Fox News. And what you are saying is that does not mean he wants to shut them up. What you want is a direct quote of Obama stating that he wants to shut them up, because without that direct quote, everything everyone else said here (including you, members of his administration, and news media) it isn't true. He really isn't trying to shut Fox News up, he just has a vendetta against them.

Alinsky, Rule #7 = you're breaking it. Best keep yourself in check

Just to be clear, you are admitting that you were wrong when you said that Obama said that Fox shouldn't be allowed to say what it does?

Nope. Quote I posted shows otherwise. As do the many articles others have posted.

If Obama feels Fox should be able to say whatever it wants, why the vendetta against them?

Vendetta? You posted a quote of Obama saying that if Fox didn't attack Republican Members of Congress who cooperated with him, more of them would cooperate with him. That is what you call a vendetta? That is a simple statement of fact.

You said that Obama said that Fox shouldn't be allowed to say what it does. The quote you posted says something completely different. Do you have a quote to support your allegation or not? Put up or shut up.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
These folk could (and have) heard Obama say something and then they will claim it was never said. Pick a topic, they've done it. Hysterical.

Next they will call you racist

Where is your source for Obama saying that Fox News shouldn't be allowed to say what it does? Put up or shut up.

There have been quite a few posters on this thread (including yourself) saying that Obama has a vendetta against Fox News. And what you are saying is that does not mean he wants to shut them up. What you want is a direct quote of Obama stating that he wants to shut them up, because without that direct quote, everything everyone else said here (including you, members of his administration, and news media) it isn't true. He really isn't trying to shut Fox News up, he just has a vendetta against them.

Alinsky, Rule #7 = you're breaking it. Best keep yourself in check

Just to be clear, you are admitting that you were wrong when you said that Obama said that Fox shouldn't be allowed to say what it does?

Nope. Quote I posted shows otherwise. As do the many articles others have posted.

If Obama feels Fox should be able to say whatever it wants, why the vendetta against them?

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
These folk could (and have) heard Obama say something and then they will claim it was never said. Pick a topic, they've done it. Hysterical.

Next they will call you racist

Where is your source for Obama saying that Fox News shouldn't be allowed to say what it does? Put up or shut up.

There have been quite a few posters on this thread (including yourself) saying that Obama has a vendetta against Fox News. And what you are saying is that does not mean he wants to shut them up. What you want is a direct quote of Obama stating that he wants to shut them up, because without that direct quote, everything everyone else said here (including you, members of his administration, and news media) it isn't true. He really isn't trying to shut Fox News up, he just has a vendetta against them.

Alinsky, Rule #7 = you're breaking it. Best keep yourself in check

Just to be clear, you are admitting that you were wrong when you said that Obama said that Fox shouldn't be allowed to say what it does?

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
These folk could (and have) heard Obama say something and then they will claim it was never said. Pick a topic, they've done it. Hysterical.

Next they will call you racist

Where is your source for Obama saying that Fox News shouldn't be allowed to say what it does? Put up or shut up.

There have been quite a few posters on this thread (including yourself) saying that Obama has a vendetta against Fox News. And what you are saying is that does not mean he wants to shut them up. What you want is a direct quote of Obama stating that he wants to shut them up, because without that direct quote, everything everyone else said here (including you, members of his administration, and news media) it isn't true. He really isn't trying to shut Fox News up, he just has a vendetta against them.

Alinsky, Rule #7 = you're breaking it. Best keep yourself in check

Anonymous wrote:
These folk could (and have) heard Obama say something and then they will claim it was never said. Pick a topic, they've done it. Hysterical.

Next they will call you racist

Where is your source for Obama saying that Fox News shouldn't be allowed to say what it does? Put up or shut up.

Anonymous wrote:http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/sequester-spin-obamas-incorrect-claim-of-capitol-janitors-receiving-a-pay-cut/2013/03/01/3407535c-82a9-11e2-b99e-6baf4ebe42df_blog.html


Fox didn't make this up: Obama saying that Capitol Hill janitors were being laid off.
Duncan implying that teachers had already gotten pink slips due to the sequester.
Homeland Security blaming the freeing of prisoners in anticipation of the sequester (or blaming it on the sequester when they planned to do it anyway?)

Attacking Fox is just another Alinsky tactic.
Sure Fox is right wing. But, making stuff up? Don't be so sure.

These folk could (and have) heard Obama say something and then they will claim it was never said. Pick a topic, they've done it. Hysterical.

Next they will call you racist

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/potus-notes/2009/nov/13/anita-dunn-msnbc-different-from-fox-news/

An interview with Valerie Jarrett who pretty much confirms that Obama was involved in trying to shut down Fox.

I know accuracy is not a priority for you guys, but is it too much to expect that you get the basics correct? I mean, even the URL you provided says that the interview is with "Anita Dunn" rather than Valerie Jarrett. If you can't even get that much right, why should we trust you about anything else?

Nevertheless, what do you mean by "shut down Fox"? Do you mean that they want Fox to close its doors and stop doing business? The article doesn't suggest that. Do you mean that they want Fox to change it's reporting style? The article doesn't say that either. All the article says is that Dunn was going to criticize Fox and that the President had likely authorized that criticism. So, are you suggesting that in defense of freedom of speech, the President and his staff should not have freedom of speech where criticism of Fox is concerned?

I'm afraid PP is beyond rational argument. This is actually a symptom of long-term exposure to Fox News.

From the article:

"Below that is video of Valerie Jarrett, a senior adviser to President Obama, backpedaling when asked by CNN’s Campbell Brown if MSNBC is biased in the same way as Fox. And at the bottom is Dunn’s appearance on CNN a month ago that began this whole thing."

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/potus-notes/2009/nov/13/anita-dunn-msnbc-different-from-fox-news/#ixzz2MR9R67rm
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

PP was kinda right..

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/sequester-spin-obamas-incorrect-claim-of-capitol-janitors-receiving-a-pay-cut/2013/03/01/3407535c-82a9-11e2-b99e-6baf4ebe42df_blog.html


Fox didn't make this up: Obama saying that Capitol Hill janitors were being laid off.
Duncan implying that teachers had already gotten pink slips due to the sequester.
Homeland Security blaming the freeing of prisoners in anticipation of the sequester (or blaming it on the sequester when they planned to do it anyway?)

Attacking Fox is just another Alinsky tactic.
Sure Fox is right wing. But, making stuff up? Don't be so sure.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

There is a difference b/t reporting facts and just making stuff up. Fox makes stuff up for political gain( live video of Benghazi, Friends of Hamas, etc). Fox also employs most of the republican's presidential candidates and takes directions from the republican party on what to stories to run. Again Fox news is not a news source. The subversion of the facts shown as news is Stalinist- fox news. Your fox watching has done you a disservice. No where in the post is anyone saying "one news source". It's a false argument.

You sound rather paranoid. If you think Fox isn't to the right as MSNBC is to the left, you must live in Colorado or Washington State, more power to you. Can you point out some of the things that Fox has 'just made up' btw? I'm curious....

Mrs. Obama's incorrect statement was that the child had been killed by an "automatic weapon" in the hands of kids.

That was edited out because she was incorrect. Automatic weapons are illegal everywhere. The child was killed by a handgun. At the time she made the statement I don't think it had been determined who had killed her. I'm pretty sure that someone over 18 has been arrested.

You clearly didn't look at the Sandy Hook hearing story very closely. In the non-edited tape, the gentleman asked the question and waited. No one said anything. Then, he said "see" no one knows the answer. THAT was when the crowd responded. The edited tape left out his comment saying that no one could answer. The crowd was respectful in not responding the first time, but then he was trying to indicate that no one could give him a good answer. That I when they said "the second amendmet."
The edited tape indicated that the crowd was disrespectful--but the gentleman twice asked for an answer.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about ABC editing out Mrs. Obama's incorrect statement about the shooting in Chicago? --that was just this week.

All of the news media does this--certainly NBCNEWS is particularly guilty. I don't approve of Fox doing this--but they are no more guilty than the others.

Another example, NBC editing the 911 call of George Zimmerman to make it appear racist. I don't know if he is a racist or not--but, one thing for sure, this edit will have a great impact and puts a fair trial in jeopardy--for the prosecution and the defense.
How about NBC editing the meeting where the poor man was talking about gun control and Sandy Hook?

Again, I don't approve of Fox editing--but NBC has done far more damage.

This all sounds fascinating. But, again, assume I don't watch Hannity all day and actually back this stuff up. What was the "incorrect statement"? How did they edit the Zimmerman call? I'm sure it sounded compelling when Steve Doocey laid it all out for you, but unfortunately we weren't there.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/25/jeff-burnside-nbc-miami-wtvj-fired-george-zimmerman-edited_n_1453679.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2013/01/30/msnbc-reviewing-newtown-heckled-video/

So, for the first link, the headline reads: "Reporter Fired Over Edited George Zimmerman 911 Call". Clearly the (local!) mainstream media is considerably more responsible than Fox. The second is a story about a video clip in which one of the parents of a child killed at Newtown asks the rhetorical question "Why does anyone need a military-style assault weapon with a 30 round clip?" during his Congressional testimony. This is met with people yelling "The Second Amendment!!" Then the chair tells them to shut up. So I'm not quite sure what your beef with that link is. Guy was testifying, crowd starts yelling stuff, crowd told to be quiet during testimony. Certainly not beyond the pale to call that "heckling".

The definition of heckling btw is "Interrupt (a public speaker) with derisive or aggressive comments or abuse." Obviously it's a judgement call, but a case could definitely be made for labeling 'shrieking "The Second Amendment! The Second Amendment!!" while someone is testifying to Congress' as heckling.

I think the problem here is that the right-wing media can manufacture outrage faster than anyone can keep up, but this really is fascinating stuff, to see what the professional outrage machine can get your average Fox 'n' Friends viewer all riled up over.

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.

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