Anonymous wrote:One should digest all news sources.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The President should not be singling out ANY news organization in this manner.

Gee, I don't think a news organization should be paying millions of dollars to the politicians they cover. But hey, that's just me.

If Fox News, by the checks it writes, proves that it is biased, why is Obama obligated to maintain the fiction that it is in fact neutral?

Because he is President and took the oath of office to uphold the Constitution, including the first Amendment?

Anonymous wrote:
The President should not be singling out ANY news organization in this manner.


Gee, I don't think a news organization should be paying millions of dollars to the politicians they cover. But hey, that's just me.

If Fox News, by the checks it writes, proves that it is biased, why is Obama obligated to maintain the fiction that it is in fact neutral?


Because he is President and took the oath of office to uphold the Constitution, including the first Amendment?

Anonymous wrote:

The President should not be singling out ANY news organization in this manner.

Gee, I don't think a news organization should be paying millions of dollars to the politicians they cover. But hey, that's just me.

If Fox News, by the checks it writes, proves that it is biased, why is Obama obligated to maintain the fiction that it is in fact neutral?

The President should not be singling out ANY news organization in this manner.

Anonymous wrote:"The Daily Mirror report was attributed to two anonymous sources describing a classified document they said contained a transcript of the two leaders' talk. One source is quoted as saying Bush's alleged remark concerning the network's headquarters in Qatar was "humorous, not serious," while the other said, "Bush was deadly serious."

Sounds tenuous at best....

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

The President should not be singling out ANY news organization in this manner.

Really?

LONDON, Nov. 22 -- President Bush expressed interest in bombing the headquarters of the Arabic television network al-Jazeera during a White House conversation with Prime Minister Tony Blair in April 2004, a British newspaper reported Tuesday.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

The President should not be singling out ANY news organization in this manner.

LONDON, Nov. 22 -- President Bush expressed interest in bombing the headquarters of the Arabic television network al-Jazeera during a White House conversation with Prime Minister Tony Blair in April 2004, a British newspaper reported Tuesday.

Anonymous wrote:

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?