Obama Administration At War With FoxNews

Oh please, who called anyone disagreeing with Obama unAmerican? I have heard those on the right call anyone disagreeing with them traitors.

The Obama administration has been mild in comparision to the bush II administration when it comes to responding to the press. It is well established fact that Fox was given preferencial treatment during the bush II years. Durring the bush II reign, george II only entertained conservative media personalities. Obama has met in private both with conservative media personalities as well as liberal media personalities.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I think Ganye summed it up pretty well in his post #76.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Because the GOP has decided to attack him personally and not on the issues. Their main line of attack is that he's destroying the Constitution. How can someone destroy the Constitution when at the same time you accuse him of doing absolutely nothing. The spokesman of your party Beck has said that he hates White people. Your other leader Limbaugh said that Barack Obama is trying to denigrate White Police officers. Then your VP nominee accused the President of plotting against his own country only to cause terror to his own people. The message of the Right is Obama is out to get White people and destroy America.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Fox must be stopped. Or not.
Whatever man, I'm just here for the fireworks. (Let me know when the civil war starts).

 

The problem is people take all this nonsense as gospel and without questioning it. It is a sad state. But on the good side, is appears that for all the money and for all the crap spewed on the airwaves daily the majority of Americans have seen through all of garbage and Republicans are enjoying historic low levels of support in the population at large.

The sad news is it makes Americans look like idiots to outsiders.

 

Perfect Sense

That's nearly hilarious. Two general points to explain why:

• Public discourse regarding the Iraqi Bush Adventure and The War Against Terror was effectively one-sided. Those who opposed the war, or the vicious policies of TWAT, were denounced as un-American terrorist sympathizers, and even declared treasonous.

• It is not so much that there is not any reason to criticize Obama; rather, the most substantial criticism is coming from the left. The problem with conservative opposition is that the GOP, in disarray after the election, has coalesced around a raucous, belligerent populist movement attempting to shout down substantial discourse with blithering paranoia, racism, and conspiracy theories. If so many liberals and Democrats are dismissing right-wing criticism of Obama, it might be because of the nature of that criticism.​

I'm sorry, but I am noticing—have long wondered about, in fact—some huge problems with conservatives: they are fundamentally dishonest, intellectually shallow, and notoriously inconsistent. They require separate standards of conduct and evidence, granting themselves and their allies a more permissive set of rules. In my own lifetime:

• It used to be that one was supposed to be respectful in criticizing the president. That is, you could certainly disagree with a president, but you were expected to be civilized, and presume good faith and the best of intentions. This standard, despite Nixon, still existed in the 1980s, as I saw it applied to Reagan. But that standard went out the window when Bill Clinton was elected, made a minor comeback during the Bush presidency, and has disappeared entirely during the first months of the Obama administration.

• When I was younger, revolutionary rhetoric was considered disrespectful, dangerous, and even shocking. Of course, this was during the Reagan and first Bush administrations. During the Clinton administration, we saw the rise of militant conservatives and libertarians, even to the point of a terrorist attack in Oklahoma City. Apparently, a megalomaniacal child molester who holds his own followers hostage is someone to be lionized. These days, though, with Obama as president, if someone shows up to a presidential event carrying a gun and advocating open, armed revolution, we are expected to applaud.​

Mr. Scott, you are an example of notorious inconsistency. The other issues might apply, but that's the one that sticks out. Throughout the Bush presidency's military adventures, the "liberal" media loaded the punditry with war and torture supporters, even put Pentagon mouthpieces on the air in the guise of punditry without vested interest. Dissenters were denounced, dropped from consideration as pundits, and even investigated for such "crimes" as criticizing President Bush or arrested for wearing a t-shirt. These days, people are getting sick of hearing about birth certificates, hyperbolic xenophobia, and the general slander and libel coming from the conservative factions, and apparently that translates to "nobody is allowed to speak against Obama and his policies".

I would find that laughable if it wasn't suggestive of sickness.

Try following liberal press sometimes. And I mean real, genuine liberal press. Like The Stranger, an über-gay alternative weekly newspaper in Seattle, which regularly criticizes Obama, Washington state's congressional Democrats, and even our Democratic supermajority in the legislature, reserving especial venom for our House Speaker. I find far more substantive criticism of Democrats in The Stranger and it's blog than I do from FOX News, right-wing pundits, Republican politicians, teabaggers, Birthers, conservative journalists and bloggers, or anyone else on the right-hand side of the aisle. While the right wing has been carrying on about birth certificates, white slavery, communism, and even trying to blame Obama for our presence in Afghanistan, the liberals have been digging in and shooting after both Democrats and Republicans. Liberal blogger Glenn Greenwald, for instance, is riding Obama and the Democrats as hard as he did Bush and the GOP, if not harder.

So, yeah, here are a few. The Stranger and the accompaniment Slog, liberal cartoonists Dwayne Booth (Mr. Fish) and David Horsey, Democracy Journal, Glenn Greenwald. And these—including Slog's resident Marxist, Charles Mudede—manage to lack the post-revolutionary revolutionary tone of something like the World Socialist Web Site.

Dealing with conservative voices is akin to dealing with many extremists. I wouldn't go so far as to compare them directly to Truthers, for instance—well, okay, the Birthers, yes, but still—but there is a useful aspect to such an analogy: An event happens. Various experts speculate about the cause. One faction of those experts is reasonably close to the truth—e.g., we failed to protect against Islamic extremists determined to hurt us—while another is off in speculation that has only one real advantage, which is increasing vitriol against one's chosen enemies. In the case of Obama, the substantive criticism is considerably more often found on the left wing than the right. Conservatives presently seem to be playing for the scoreboard: Memory is a stranger; history is for fools.°

There are real criticisms of Obama to focus on. They simply aren't coming from conservatives right now. Doesn't mean they're not allowed to criticize the president, but just because they're criticizing the president does not, in itself, mean anyone is obliged to take them seriously.

And, after a while, with so many real challenges facing the nation, some people just get sick of hearing the same old, dishonest excrement from the right wing.
____________________

Notes:

° Memory is a stranger; history is for fools — Roger Waters, "Perfect Sense, Part I".

 

Look, I see the truth out there.

When people were protesting against the Iraq war calling it illegal, they were in fact lying throught their teeth. Yet the president never-ever came forward and called these people un-american or hinted they might not have America's best interest at heart. Now individual might have, but the president NEVER did.

In a Nationally Broadcast Presidential Adress to Congress Obama openly said that people protesting against his Health care bill "...did not have America's best interest at heart." The basically called anyone who disagreed with him a traitor. Hell you could like his plan and just not like the fine for not getting insurance and in his book you are still Un-American.

Now why didn't anybody pounce on this? Becuase the major news networks have had a love affair with Obama since day one. They fell for his charisma the same way some conservatives fell for Reagan's.


Oh and Tiassa Bush senior suffered under the press before Clinton did. The media has their favorites and trust me they aren't afraid to show it.

As for what people view as a politcally motivated attack. Ever think that maybe there is some substance and that only the motivated managed to dig it out of it's hiding place? I'm not saying we believe everything we hear. I am saying don't discount it just becuase of the source, do a little research. Who knows Fox might have stumbled on to something or they might not. Discounting it as Fox propaganda is just pure laziness and bias.

 

Well, I needed a chuckle

(chortle!)

I love it when people open that way.

(guffaw!)

How does that work?

Show us the quote.

Actually, the reason nobody pounced on it is because most people recognize that the insurance industry is problematic, to say the least. I mean, when you dedicate a team of employees to figure out how to cancel people's coverage after they get sick, so you don't have to pay? The thing is that recission cancels people for fraud without ever demonstrating that fraud has occurred. When asked specifically while testifying before Congress, the CEOs of the three largest health insurance companies in the nation all stated flatly that they would not cease this practice.

Who was the "Rush Limbaugh" of Bush senior's term?

Oh, by the way, who said, "Read my lips. No new taxes."

And, as Poppy Bush took down Noriega, just who was that head of the CIA who kept him on the payroll?

The fact is that every president has faced derision. There is a story about George Washington that Gouvernor Morris once took a bet to greet the nation's first president with a hearty slap on the back, something Washington disdained.

Why don't you show us some examples of the equivalent of what Clinton went through, or Obama is going through? That would certainly help make your case.

The problem with this argument at this time is that the fact that some motivated people manage to dig facts out of their hiding place does not mean that is what Bill O'Reilly, or Glenn Beck, or Sean Hannity, or anyone over at FOX News is necessarily doing. Beck himself says he doesn't check his facts. O'Reilly incites violence. FOX News acted as spokespeople for the tea parties.

 

Nothing remotely comparable.

Try it - try making the comparison, with examples.

 

You can't, if for nothing else than for the simple reason that Bush Sr. kept his nose clean. Clinton did not. What's more he also had a policy team, like the one his wife led, that picked fights with everyone.

 

I'm glad Obama's team know who the real enemy is.

 

There was just as much available foundation for creating barrages of lies and full scale propaganda assaults against Pere as ever against Clinton.

There were even some actual scandals in his record, and serious familial ties with easily sensationalized and major, relevant wrongdoings - unlike with Clinton, there would have been no need to invent wholesale.

The old family fortune Nazi connection alone could have kept the Limbaughs in ammo for years, never mind the CIA taint, the oil company taint, the Iraq war manipulation taint, the Iran Contra taint, and the continual financial issues of his parents, children, and relations.

But in fact no one put up the 40 million in investigation and invention financing, no one established and built their media careers on assaults against him, and he was given a pass on everything from his verbal gaffes to his children's adult characters to his sleazy oil and financial associations.

 

What falsehoods were reported as facts? His post was a link to what seemed to be mostly a bunch of tiny snippets of opinions about Obama. What specific falsehood did they report as fact?

 

Thanks for giving me the kooky Leftist take, Ice.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

FOX won't get one of these.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Poor folks, they have the george II seal of approval though.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

They kept reporting that Kevin Jennings had committed statutory rape even after such claims were debunked.

 

Here's another revealing montage of Fox News deliberately lying and doing everything they can to delegitimize him. I can't see how any thinking person could conclude otherwise.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQnmxW-UyKo

 

Didn't know Obama has a seal of approval, well I guess if pedobear can have one so can Obama.

 

what prescott bush did do business with the Nazis and did participate in an attempted fascist takeover. George H. W. Bush made connections with the house of saud which is considered a supporter of terrorism and is linked with extreme forms of Islam. there were also some indirect buisness ties to the binladen family



these aren't conjecture they are facts.