White house goes after Fox News

[Slim]

Slim, when I saw this line I thought it was really ironic, as you exactly capture the consequences of the dishonest fearmongering of your favorite news outlets and their friends. It is clearly dangerous and irresponsible for them to suggest that the office of the President is occupied by somebody not a citizen, or that there are death panels, or any of dozens of other falsehoods. But since it supports your partisan side you gleefully support such distructive behavior. A real shame.

Dangerous to who? Dangerous to your agenda perhaps.

Are you seriously suggesting that the right is the only side to play these types of political games? Hahahaa. Or maybe they are just better at them? You're quite a funny and transparent guy.

[jeff]

Dangerous to who? Dangerous to your agenda perhaps.

This is very easy to answer: it's dangerous to democracy to fraudulently claim that we have an illegitimate dictator in power. This is already causing teabag morons to call for armed insurrection. That's as dangerous and irresponsible as anything imaginable. It appears you support that unpatriotic, seditious, and dangerous behavior.

This has nothing to do with my agenda or anyone else. It was equally wrong to equate Bush with infamous dictators when he was president, and I said so at the time. You're the one who is promoting an agenda by smear, not me.

Since you're the person who brought it up, you should explain how davesaint is "dangerous and irresponsible" for pointing out fraud.

Are you seriously suggesting that the right is the only side to play these types of political games? Hahahaa. Or maybe they are just better at them? You're quite a funny and transparent guy.

Not the "only", but the predominant culprit. It's their identifying characteristic. All you are doing is saying that it's okay for them to repeat bald faced lies because you believe other people lie too. Didn't your parents or pastor teach you better than that?

I'm glad you find my remarks funny. That's twice now you've said that, and if you ever give that rep you said you would it would be an ironic acknowledgement. As far as "transparent": why shouldn't I be? I have no intent to deceive. Do you?

[lindajdunn]

In your recent spirit of giving credit to where credit is due, why dont you post some of the gaffs and slight of hand tricks of CNN an MSNBC?

Because I didn't find any when I Googled.

Here's one: http://washingtonindependent.com/117...ng-on-acorn%5D

And here's another one, but it's from 2005. http://mediamatters.org/research/200503220005

Here's a more recent one: http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-215979

[Slim]

This is very easy to answer: it's dangerous to democracy to fraudulently claim that we have an illegitimate dictator in power. This is already causing teabag morons to call for armed insurrection. That's as dangerous and irresponsible as anything imaginable. It appears you support that unpatriotic, seditious, and dangerous behavior.

Didnt we hear similar dubious cries of "disenfranchised voters", "regime" and "selected not elected" when GW won? Twice.

And this armed insurrection is gaining momentum...where? Dont you think that's a little over the top too...almost hysterical?

This has nothing to do with my agenda or anyone else. It was equally wrong to equate Bush with infamous dictators when he was president, and I said so at the time. You're the one who is promoting an agenda by smear, not me.

I've been on here for a while and dont recall you ever coming to the defense of GW being slandered as a dictator or being equated to a Nazi, or being as outraged over some false claims made against the last administration. If you can revive some posts you made, I'd be happy to acknowledge your fairness.

I'm not promoting anything here. Simply pointing out that its done on both sides. The tactics may be a bit different, but they all like to manipulate the facts one way or another. If no one was listening, I doubt you would all be as concerned, but there seems to be something to what and how they are presenting things that make you afraid of them.

Since you're the person who brought it up, you should explain how davesaint is "dangerous and irresponsible" for pointing out fraud.

Actually, I was referring to the promotion of liberal political beliefs as dangerous and irresponsible. His lack of legal knowledge was obvious. To expand, I think the liberal agenda is dangerous and irresponsible to this country. They are immature, naive and idealistic. Some noble, perhaps. Logical and rational, unfortunately no.

Not the "only", but the predominant culprit. It's their identifying characteristic. All you are doing is saying that it's okay for them to repeat bald faced lies because you believe other people lie too. Didn't your parents or pastor teach you better than that?

Once again, your condescension is overflowing. We're going in circles. All along I've said both sides engage in this sort of thing. I've never once said one side was better or worse, OR it was acceptable. Unlike you and and others here that refuse to concede it and keep harping the mantra that "Fox is Evil" and "Rush is the devil" every chance you get.

I'm glad you find my remarks funny. That's twice now you've said that, and if you ever give that rep you said you would it would be an ironic acknowledgement. As far as "transparent": why shouldn't I be? I have no intent to deceive. Do you?

Apparently I've repped you recently, so it's telling me to spread some around. Not easy for me on this particular area of this site. But I will, especially since not doing so has seemed to upset you.

You're transparency is showing that you're maybe not quite as "fair and balanced" as you might like to think you are.

[Slim]

Because I didn't find any when I Googled.

Here's one: http://washingtonindependent.com/117...ng-on-acorn%5D

And here's another one, but it's from 2005. http://mediamatters.org/research/200503220005

Here's a more recent one: http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-215979

Weak. Very weak.

[Bayou Bum]

A good reliable source for news.

http://www.eyeblast.tv

A must see for those who use the DailyShow as a news source:

http://www.eyeblast.tv/channels/newsbusted

[jeff]

Didnt we hear similar dubious cries of "disenfranchised voters", "regime" and "selected not elected" when GW won? Twice.

Indeed we did, but it did not become the war cry of the Democratic party, nor did the Democrats and their allies mount a campaign against GWB on that basis.

And this armed insurrection is gaining momentum...where? Dont you think that's a little over the top too...almost hysterical?

I don't know if it's gaining or not - which is why I said nothing about momentum. What is relevant here is that conservatives and even the Republican party are encouraging these morons rather than repudiating them. That's what makes it "dangerous and irresponsible".

I've been on here for a while and dont recall you ever coming to the defense of GW being slandered as a dictator or being equated to a Nazi, or being as outraged over some false claims made against the last administration. If you can revive some posts you made, I'd be happy to acknowledge your fairness.

I did in fact say it was wrong to smear GWB in that fashion, but I'm not going to go back and search for it. It's a fair amount of work and it's here on the board in black and white. You'll just have to take my word for it, or not. It's up to you.

I'm not promoting anything here. Simply pointing out that its done on both sides. The tactics may be a bit different, but they all like to manipulate the facts one way or another. If no one was listening, I doubt you would all be as concerned, but there seems to be something to what and how they are presenting things that make you afraid of them.

(1) You have made many posts on this board gleefully repeating the smears from the side you favor. If that's not "promoting" then what is?

(2) Saying it's done on both sides isn't the same as proving it. If you think that CNN or the NYT are as bad as Rush, Beck, Hannity, or O'Reilly, then put up some evidence, and be prepared to say that if it's bad for the left to smear then it's bad for the right as well. So far you only defend their outrages rather then repudiate them. When even the right wing WSJ prints an opinion piece saying that Fox is "dangerous and irresponsible" (a very handy phrase, thanks) then it's pretty clear that they're "not all the same".

Actually, I was referring to the promotion of liberal political beliefs as dangerous and irresponsible. His lack of legal knowledge was obvious. To expand, I think the liberal agenda is dangerous and irresponsible to this country. They are immature, naive and idealistic. Some noble, perhaps. Logical and rational, unfortunately no.

You're saying that his First Amendment protected right to criticize political figures like Beck is "dangerous and irresponsible" in the very sentence where you defend Beck et al's First Amendment rights to (as Dave said) "shout Fire in a crowded theater" in the first place. I guess in your world protected speech is permitted in only one direction. You put that in the same paragraph that insinuates that our freedom of speech may be taken away by the administration? That itself is a baseless smear.

You are of course have a right to your beliefs about "liberal agenda" and to express them.

Once again, your condescension is overflowing. We're going in circles. All along I've said both sides engage in this sort of thing. I've never once said one side was better or worse, OR it was acceptable. Unlike you and and others here that refuse to concede it and keep harping the mantra that "Fox is Evil" and "Rush is the devil" every chance you get.

I simply don't believe you. For months you've repeated, defended and gloated over the expressions fed you by Fox and friends. To claim that you're neutral in this regard is beyond belief. To say "both sides do it" is a child's schoolyard excuse for misbehavior. If you think this behavior is wrong, then show it by not doing it yourself. It's very simple.

Apparently I've repped you recently, so it's telling me to spread some around. Not easy for me on this particular area of this site. But I will, especially since not doing so has seemed to upset you.

You haven't in the past 2 months, which is as far back as the display in my User Control Panel goes. I guess you don't rep people often. Believe me, not having a rep from you doesn't upset me in the least.

You're transparency is showing that you're maybe not quite as "fair and balanced" as you might like to think you are.

Let me put it to you this way: I have a political belief system, as do you. I just don't think it's right for anyone to indulge in the kind of antics that you enjoy from right wing extremists. You apparently approve when its from your side.

[Slim]

Indeed we did, but it did not become the war cry of the Democratic party, nor did the Democrats and their allies mount a campaign against GWB on that basis.

Weak.

I don't know if it's gaining or not - which is why I said nothing about momentum. What is relevant here is that conservatives and even the Republican party are encouraging these morons rather than repudiating them. That's what makes it "dangerous and irresponsible".

Paranoid and hysterical.

I did in fact say it was wrong to smear GWB in that fashion, but I'm not going to go back and search for it. It's a fair amount of work and it's here on the board in black and white. You'll just have to take my word for it, or not. It's up to you.

I checked. You didnt.

(1) You have made many posts on this board gleefully repeating the smears from the side you favor. If that's not "promoting" then what is?

(2) Saying it's done on both sides isn't the same as proving it. If you think that CNN or the NYT are as bad as Rush, Beck, Hannity, or O'Reilly, then put up some evidence, and be prepared to say that if it's bad for the left to smear then it's bad for the right as well. So far you only defend their outrages rather then repudiate them. When even the right wing WSJ prints an opinion piece saying that Fox is "dangerous and irresponsible" (a very handy phrase, thanks) then it's pretty clear that they're "not all the same".

So, I should repudiate them while it's ok you never did? (I checked, remember)

And I need to prove my statements while I have to "take your word"?

You're saying that his First Amendment protected right to criticize political figures like Beck is "dangerous and irresponsible" in the very sentence where you defend Beck et al's First Amendment rights to (as Dave said) "shout Fire in a crowded theater" in the first place. I guess in your world protected speech is permitted in only one direction. You put that in the same paragraph that insinuates that our freedom of speech may be taken away by the administration? That itself is a baseless smear.

Nice try. I never said or implied anything of the sort.

You are of course have a right to your beliefs about "liberal agenda" and to express them.

How liberal of you.

I simply don't believe you. For months you've repeated, defended and gloated over the expressions fed you by Fox and friends. To claim that you're neutral in this regard is beyond belief. To say "both sides do it" is a child's schoolyard excuse for misbehavior. If you think this behavior is wrong, then show it by not doing it yourself. It's very simple.

I know you, are but what am I.

You haven't in the past 2 months, which is as far back as the display in my User Control Panel goes. I guess you don't rep people often. Believe me, not having a rep from you doesn't upset me in the least.

Then why did you complain when I didnt?

Let me put it to you this way: I have a political belief system, as do you. I just don't think it's right for anyone to indulge in the kind of antics that you enjoy from right wing extremists. You apparently approve when its from your side.

And you apparently disapprove only when its not from yours.

[jeff]

I'm sure you made a comprehensive search, Slim. (sarcasm)

And, it surely doesn't matter. If you think what Fox and it's ilk does is "fair and balanced" no matter what, then just come out and say so, instead of hiding behind what you can or can't find in the archives here. Either it's right or its wrong - you don't need me for your own declaration. I've said so it's wrong to smear people unfairly in this very thread - whether you can find previous times I've said that or not makes no matter (nor does whether you repped me. Nothing could be of lesser importance). So, yes, you should repudiate them even if I didn't repudiate people doing as bad from the other side (as I know I've done). Tough, this ethics stuff aint it.

[Philistine]

{snip}

I checked. You didnt.




So, I should repudiate them while it's ok you never did? (I checked, remember){snip}

In a post last month, responding to you, Jeff said "It was wrong for lefties to call Bush a Nazi, and it's just as wrong to righties to do the same to Obama."

First search in advanced: +bush +hitler +jeff

You should perhaps work on your search-fu, or your memory. Probably both....

--Philistine

[kapunga]

This whole thread reminds me of something my friend said,

"There are two groups of people in the US. One of them is outraged, and the other is dissappointed. Every once in a while, we switch off which group is which."

[davesaint]

Well... so long as there actually is no fire....

Nobody remembers that part of the quote.



Not exactly. Otherwise Borat and Alan Funt would be guilty of fraud.

--Philistine

Sorry for my delays in responding, but my hard drive blew up last week and I have just finished fixing it.

You are correct Philistine. If there is an acutal fire in the theater, it's ok to shout fire.

Borat and Alan Funt get the satire exemption for their work. However, I don't think the likes of Beck, Obermann, Hannity, O'Reily and their ilk would qualify on that exception. About the only 2 that would are Colbert and Stewart.

Dave

[davesaint]

Didnt we hear similar dubious cries of "disenfranchised voters", "regime" and "selected not elected" when GW won? Twice.

And this armed insurrection is gaining momentum...where? Dont you think that's a little over the top too...almost hysterical?




I've been on here for a while and dont recall you ever coming to the defense of GW being slandered as a dictator or being equated to a Nazi, or being as outraged over some false claims made against the last administration. If you can revive some posts you made, I'd be happy to acknowledge your fairness.

I'm not promoting anything here. Simply pointing out that its done on both sides. The tactics may be a bit different, but they all like to manipulate the facts one way or another. If no one was listening, I doubt you would all be as concerned, but there seems to be something to what and how they are presenting things that make you afraid of them.



Actually, I was referring to the promotion of liberal political beliefs as dangerous and irresponsible. His lack of legal knowledge was obvious. To expand, I think the liberal agenda is dangerous and irresponsible to this country. They are immature, naive and idealistic. Some noble, perhaps. Logical and rational, unfortunately no.



Once again, your condescension is overflowing. We're going in circles. All along I've said both sides engage in this sort of thing. I've never once said one side was better or worse, OR it was acceptable. Unlike you and and others here that refuse to concede it and keep harping the mantra that "Fox is Evil" and "Rush is the devil" every chance you get.



Apparently I've repped you recently, so it's telling me to spread some around. Not easy for me on this particular area of this site. But I will, especially since not doing so has seemed to upset you.

You're transparency is showing that you're maybe not quite as "fair and balanced" as you might like to think you are.

Slim,

Sorry I couldn't respond to this earlier as my hard drive crashed on my PC and it took a while to replace and reload all the software.

As far as my "liberal agenda", you really don't know enough about me to draw that conclusion. I voted for GWB in 2000. After the first 4 years of his term I realized just how much of a mistake that was.

The problem I have with the "conservative and libertarian agenda" as people call them is the lack of compassion that they show the general poplulace. I agree with many of the libertarian principles, such as legalization of drugs, minimalization of gun control laws, and such. The problem I have is when the pprecious few are profiting over the good of the community. I hear much discussed by my conservative friends that they are always trying to do everything they can to help the good of the community, however poverty rates in the US are at an all time high at the same time that the number of billionaires are equally at an all time high. The middle class is vanishing before our eyes, mainly due to the high paying manufacturing jobs that are being sent overseas in order to pad the profits of the upper echelon of the corporations. The CEO of the company I work for earned over 10 times my salaray last year in one of the worst financial times our company has ever seen.

As far as the law goes, I do have issues when people in the media are deliberately misleading viewers in order to expound their political beliefs. I was just as angry with Dan Rather and his Bush Documents as I am with the Glen Beck and Lou Dobbs and this insanity of the birther movement. Both of these actions are precipating fraud on the American People.

So if you really want to discuss what is going on in our country and have an actual opinion for yourself, I would gladly discuss it. If you want to just spew what you are hearing on Fox News, well, I guess there is really nothing to discuss.

My issue with Fox News is that they are using the tag line of "Fair and Balanced" when they have no intention of being so.

I actually have to respect CNN for the direction they are heading. They have indicated that they are going to move away in the future from political talk shows and get back to their roots of reporting the news, not giving their opinion of it.

As far as MSNBC goes, at least they are honest about what they do. They do indicate in their advertising that they are the "Best Place to go for Politics"

Dave

[Bayou Bum]

The problem I have is when the pprecious few are profiting over the good of the community. I hear much discussed by my conservative friends that they are always trying to do everything they can to help the good of the community, however poverty rates in the US are at an all time high at the same time that the number of billionaires are equally at an all time high. The middle class is vanishing before our eyes, mainly due to the high paying manufacturing jobs that are being sent overseas in order to pad the profits of the upper echelon of the corporations. The CEO of the company I work for earned over 10 times my salaray last year in one of the worst financial times our company has ever seen.

There are many comments I could make about the good of the community, profits, jobs going overseas, and your salary compared to the CEO, but I think it would fall on deaf ears. So, I am curious as to what your solution is for the following you listed:

How would you make the wealthy do more for the good of the community?
How would you reduce the poverty rates?
How do you propose we get manufacturing jobs to come back to the US.
What do you propose we do about corporate profits and CEO salaries?

I am interested in hearing any ideas you think would work.

[jeff]

In a post last month, responding to you, Jeff said "It was wrong for lefties to call Bush a Nazi, and it's just as wrong to righties to do the same to Obama."

First search in advanced: +bush +hitler +jeff

You should perhaps work on your search-fu, or your memory. Probably both....

--Philistine

My sincere thanks to you for finding that.

I wonder what dodge Slim will use to get around this. Probably his usual one "concede nothing, and just start a new smear thread". Oh, that already happened.

Note that the above post from September was one where I pointed out that Slim had yet to respond to Philistine proving that yet another Slim claim was BS. He still hasn't.

So it goes, in a repetitive cycle. Slim, BB, or chase try to throw some mud, and then run away when they get challenged for what are usually obvious falsehoods..

[migopod]

My sincere thanks to you for finding that.

I wonder what dodge Slim will use to get around this. Probably his usual one "concede nothing, and just start a new smear thread". Oh, that already happened.

Note that the above post from September was one where I pointed out that Slim had yet to respond to Philistine proving that yet another Slim claim was BS. He still hasn't.

So it goes, in a repetitive cycle. Slim, BB, or chase try to throw some mud, and then run away when they get challenged for what are usually obvious falsehoods..

That is what would be called "Textbook Trolling" if there were an Intro to Trolling 101 with an accompanying textbook.

[davesaint]

There are many comments I could make about the good of the community, profits, jobs going overseas, and your salary compared to the CEO, but I think it would fall on deaf ears. So, I am curious as to what your solution is for the following you listed:

How would you make the wealthy do more for the good of the community?
How would you reduce the poverty rates?
How do you propose we get manufacturing jobs to come back to the US.
What do you propose we do about corporate profits and CEO salaries?

I am interested in hearing any ideas you think would work.

Well as far as poverty and manufacturing jobs you can help with both by providing tax incentives to corporations that open new manufacturing plants in the US. If it is worthwile for corportations to create jobs in the US they will be less likely to ship them overseas. The reason for shipping the jobs overseas is purely a cost basis. I would think if the costs are similar, that corporations would likely keep the Jobs in the US as the goodwill brought by job creation will make up for small differences in costs.

As far as corporate profits and CEO's go, I have a couple of suggestions. First, stop this quarterly reporting nonsene to wall street investors. Too much is made of short term gains as a corporate philosphy due to worries about stock prices over long term growth. I would also like to see us eliminate Stock Options as an investment/compensation tool. Thus placing more emphasis on long term growth rather than short term profit taking.

By providing jobs for the community, we would be improving the "Community Good" More people that work, the better it is for society as a whole.

Of course the other mechanic in the investment market I want to see eliminated is the Vix, or the Volitility indicator. Basically people investing money and gambling on fear that is present in the market.

Dave

[lindajdunn]

Well as far as poverty and manufacturing jobs you can help with both by providing tax incentives to corporations that open new manufacturing plants in the US. If it is worthwile for corportations to create jobs in the US they will be less likely to ship them overseas. The reason for shipping the jobs overseas is purely a cost basis. I would think if the costs are similar, that corporations would likely keep the Jobs in the US as the goodwill brought by job creation will make up for small differences in costs.

Dave

Tax cuts wouldn't be sufficient to bring costs in line under what they are overseas. For example, Dell computers has manufacturing facilities in Ireland, where they don't have to worry about providing health insurance for the employees. In places like China, manufacturers can take advantage of prison labor and child labor without social agencies or OSHA butting in.

It's a complicated problem that cannot be resolved with simple solutions.

[Capt. Slo-mo]

But: removing the cost burden of providing health insurance for the employees might be a good start towards redressing some of the imbalance.

[jessicasimpson]

[QUOTE=lindajdunn;838835] Dell computers has manufacturing facilities in Ireland, where they don't have to worry about providing health insurance for the employees. QUOTE]

At their plant in Nashville, over 70% of their employees are temps that they do not provide health insurance for anyway