White House Attacks Fox News

[maxiep]

I'd have no problem with the next republican president not giving a live interview to MSNBC and calling them out on their BS.

But CNN? Give me a break. CNN is far less bias then Fox or MSNBC. Plus, there is a difference between being bias and promoting an agenda.

Really? You're in favor of our leaders ducking hard questions? I want Chris Matthews grilling the next Republican President, just as I'd like to see Chris Wallace put President Obama's feet to the fire.

 

[MrJayremmie]

Nope, no problem with it. I'd like to see it as well, sure. But if a show is dedicated to attacking the administration and pursuing an agenda, I think that is fucked up, and I would have no problem with the president pretty much saying "Fuck You" to them.

With Fox, its just amazing how they now say they are the only news station keeping the administration accountable, when its such an amazing 180 from what they were doing when Bush was president. That's how you know its fucked up. "Fair and Balanced" is the problem. The media should be the lifeblood of a democracy, keeping EVERYONE in check.

But knowing that you are tilting the news (and from their memo's they know) and being a predominantly conservative station (Except for Shep Smith who is rad) and then getting your panties in a bunch when the Pres. shuts you out? Give me a break.

Anyway, i'm off to class.

 

[MrJayremmie]

[video=youtube;o7bMUalkOvw]

37 seconds.

 

[maxiep]

Nope, no problem with it. I'd like to see it as well, sure. But if a show is dedicated to attacking the administration and pursuing an agenda, I think that is fucked up, and I would have no problem with the president pretty much saying "Fuck You" to them.

With Fox, its just amazing how they now say they are the only news station keeping the administration accountable, when its such an amazing 180 from what they were doing when Bush was president. That's how you know its fucked up. "Fair and Balanced" is the problem. The media should be the lifeblood of a democracy, keeping EVERYONE in check.

But knowing that you are tilting the news (and from their memo's they know) and being a predominantly conservative station (Except for Shep Smith who is rad) and then getting your panties in a bunch when the Pres. shuts you out? Give me a break.

Anyway, i'm off to class.

Seriously? You still don't understand the difference between news and opinion? You really lump Brit Hume or Chris Wallace in with Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity?

 

[maxiep]

37 seconds.

That was the best you could come up with? Someone in a roundtable saying "I don't think FOX should talk about someone from CNN"? Pretty weak.

 

[Idog1976]

The decline of the USD as the de facto world currency is the biggest story being ignored right now. If people don't use the dollar as a safe haven, we're going to see an overnight drop in our standard of living. Think of other countries as our personal VISA card and it's been our habit to run an increasing credit balance month after month. One day, they not only tell us our credit is cut off, but we must repay it in short order.
.

This is easily the most important thing going on IN THE WORLD. Yet no one is talking about it. One thing that is definitely not true is that this has anything to do with either Bush or Obama. Rather, it has everything in the world to do with the PRIVATE ownership of the Federal Reserve which is neither Federal nor a reserve. The FED owns the politicians, not the other way around.

What Obama (or previously Bush) says is simply a distraction from the far greater story of the actual ownership of physical resources in the world. Some of this is achieved by millitary dominance, the majority is achieved by monetary/financial dominance. When the Dollar goes so will go the Old World Order, which of course will usher in the New. That is the entire point. It's all over European news, meanwhile we are arguing over the Olympics and whether Obama should give back a Nobel Peace Prize. It's sad really.

You Right Wingers (And lefites) are worried about National Soverignty? Stop wasting time with Tea Parties and support the G-20/WTO/IMF protests, you know the protests that are BRUTALLY suppressed. It is Central Banks that create the Warfare/Welfare states playing the War hawks off the Welfare supporters not realizing it's two sides of the same coin that slowly rob a country of it's wealth. If the Tea Party movement was a threat to some Super-national elite then you better believe they would be quashed as well. Start protesting the Federal Reserve. Our soverignty is being chipped away at by the Central Banking cartel that's where the threat lies. Obama is just a puppet like Bush to distract you from the puppet masters. Look into fractional reserve banking and the Central Banking system it all becomes quite clear.

 

[yakbladder]

CNN fact checked a Saturday Night Live skit that made fun of Obama. They did this as a serious news report.

Well they do have 24 hours of news to carry.

Personally I'd like to see all of the 24 hours news channels eliminated. Maybe 4 hours of news and updates when necessary. But the local networks seem to be marching the other way.

 

[yakbladder]

You Right Wingers (And lefites) are worried about National Soverignty? Stop wasting time with Tea Parties and support the G-20/WTO/IMF protests, you know the protests that are BRUTALLY suppressed. It is Central Banks that create the Warfare/Welfare states playing the War hawks off the Welfare supporters not realizing it's two sides of the same coin that slowly rob a country of it's wealth. If the Tea Party movement was a threat to some Super-national elite then you better believe they would be quashed as well. Start protesting the Federal Reserve. Our soverignty is being chipped away at by the Central Banking cartel that's where the threat lies. Obama is just a puppet like Bush to distract you from the puppet masters. Look into fractional reserve banking and the Central Banking system it all becomes quite clear.

While I find your post to be slightly paranoid I also agree that all of the free trade proposals only hurt the U.S. especially when currency manipulation is so prevalent among some larger countries who will go unnamed.

And yes, the decline of the dollar is a huge concern. But other than simply cutting everything to the core, paying off the deficit, and reverting back to the gold standard I'm not sure how it gets fixed.

 

[maxiep]

This is easily the most important thing going on IN THE WORLD. Yet no one is talking about it. One thing that is definitely not true is that this has anything to do with either Bush or Obama. Rather, it has everything in the world to do with the PRIVATE ownership of the Federal Reserve which is neither Federal nor a reserve. The FED owns the politicians, not the other way around.

What Obama (or previously Bush) says is simply a distraction from the far greater story of the actual ownership of physical resources in the world. Some of this is achieved by millitary dominance, the majority is achieved by monetary/financial dominance. When the Dollar goes so will go the Old World Order, which of course will usher in the New. That is the entire point. It's all over European news, meanwhile we are arguing over the Olympics and whether Obama should give back a Nobel Peace Prize. It's sad really.

You Right Wingers (And lefites) are worried about National Soverignty? Stop wasting time with Tea Parties and support the G-20/WTO/IMF protests, you know the protests that are BRUTALLY suppressed. It is Central Banks that create the Warfare/Welfare states playing the War hawks off the Welfare supporters not realizing it's two sides of the same coin that slowly rob a country of it's wealth. If the Tea Party movement was a threat to some Super-national elite then you better believe they would be quashed as well. Start protesting the Federal Reserve. Our soverignty is being chipped away at by the Central Banking cartel that's where the threat lies. Obama is just a puppet like Bush to distract you from the puppet masters. Look into fractional reserve banking and the Central Banking system it all becomes quite clear.

I would love to see the Federal Government pass a balanced budget amendment, to be exceeded only in the exception of war. As part of that amendment, I'd love to have the US Government get put on a payoff plan for our national debt, say between 30-50 years. If you did that, the Fed's power would decrease dramatically and we would solidify the USD's status as the world's currency because people would know it was a responsible investment.

If you want new or increased spending, then request new or increased taxes. Right now, politicians can give, give, give without ever having to deal out any pain.

Edit: To be clear, under my idea of a balanced budget amendment, the only amount you'd be able to exceed in a war is the difference between the projected peacetime defense budget and the amount the war costs.

 

[barfo]

It is sort of funny/sad that the things we debate here tend to be the most trivial of issues (is Obama being mean to Fox News? Did some Norweigans make a mistake when they gave Obama a prize?).

As for the balanced budget amendment maxiep proposes, I'd be worried about that exception. Seems like we'd be having a lot more wars (or maybe just one endless war) if that was the only way to open the spending floodgates. [Edit: I see your edit now, and limiting the extra spending to just the war costs removes a good part of my objection.] I'd at least want to exclude wars of choice from the exception.

barfo

 

[maxiep]

It is sort of funny/sad that the things we debate here tend to be the most trivial of issues (is Obama being mean to Fox News? Did some Norweigans make a mistake when they gave Obama a prize?).

As for the balanced budget amendment maxiep proposes, I'd be worried about that exception. Seems like we'd be having a lot more wars (or maybe just one endless war) if that was the only way to open the spending floodgates. [Edit: I see your edit now, and limiting the extra spending to just the war costs removes a good part of my objection.] I'd at least want to exclude wars of choice from the exception.

barfo

Why? There would be nothing to be gained, because the only difference in the spending would be to fund the war. There wouldn't be an extra penny to go anywhere.

 

[barfo]

Why? There would be nothing to be gained, because the only difference in the spending would be to fund the war. There wouldn't be an extra penny to go anywhere.

Yah, like I said I hadn't seen your edit about that when I wrote that.

barfo

 

[maxiep]

Yah, like I said I hadn't seen your edit about that when I wrote that.

barfo

Ah, my bad. I went back and added to my post when I realized there was a large part I didn't put into my casual proposal.

All I want is a government that can pay for itself. The easiest choice is to pay tomorrow for benefits today. That's not the kind of burden I think we should leave the succeeding generations. If we want more benefits, we should pay more TODAY. IMO, that will create a structure where only the most necessary spending passes through.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

It is sort of funny/sad that the things we debate here tend to be the most trivial of issues (is Obama being mean to Fox News? Did some Norweigans make a mistake when they gave Obama a prize?). barfo

Yeah!! Who started this dippy thread, anyway???

 

[andalusian]

That's not the kind of burden I think we should leave the succeeding generations.

You are only saying that because you have a kid that looks like Chris Farley. Those of us that are not so blessed do not need to live by these rules

Duck and cover, duck and cover.

 

[maxiep]

You are only saying that because you have a kid that looks like Chris Farley. Those of us that are not so blessed do not need to live by these rules

Duck and cover, duck and cover.

That Chris Farley baby is going to make a ton of money on the lookalike circuit when she's older!

 

[barfo]

That Chris Farley baby is going to make a ton of money on the lookalike circuit when she's older!

How old is that photo? For all we know that is Chris Farley.

barfo

 

[Idog1976]

While I find your post to be slightly paranoid I also agree that all of the free trade proposals only hurt the U.S. especially when currency manipulation is so prevalent among some larger countries who will go unnamed.

And yes, the decline of the dollar is a huge concern. But other than simply cutting everything to the core, paying off the deficit, and reverting back to the gold standard I'm not sure how it gets fixed.

Some say that belief in global warming (climate change) is delusional. Some say being worried about government wiretapping is paranoia etc. etc. I would argue that what I'm saying is perfectly grounded in a rational understanding of the history of central banking and fractional reserve banking. If Central Banks were run in a similar manner but controlled by the government it might be different, but they are private profit making vehicles that determine the soundness of a nations currency. Read Carrol Quigley's "Tradgedy and Hope: The story of our time" he was considered the greatest history professor on earth (or at a bare minimum in the US) when he wrote that book. He speaks quite clearly about Central Banks and their influence on history. All the information is out there. You can call me paranoid if you wish, but I believe I was the first on this board to say we would soon have a new global currency. Read the headlines especially of European newspapers and you will see I'm correct. Google "The Tower of Basel" it explains what is going on quite succinctly.

The solution is to nationalize the FED and default on loans that were secured for the private holders of the FED's stock. If that wipes out BofA so be it. It's a parasite off the back of the american people. Let's control our own currency not sub-contract it out to the least ethical contractors in the history of the world. Also you can look up the Earth + 3% it explains the rise of Central Banking in allegorical form with historical footnotes at the end. English Goldsmiths, the magna carta and all that.

 

[MrJayremmie]

Seriously? You still don't understand the difference between news and opinion? You really lump Brit Hume or Chris Wallace in with Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity?

Uh, of course I do. You think i'm outraged at Sean Hannity? LOL. That guy is completely irrelevant.

I'm just simply in awe that you seem so oblivious to how messed up their actual "news" broadcasts are (outside of Shep Smith). I guess its just because you agree with it. Comparing the MSNBC and Fox "news" (excluding opinion parts), I think MSNBC is more balanced in their reporting, honestly.

You are obviously not going to admit that the channel you are so ideologically close to is not actual news.

Again, watch "Outfoxed".

That was the best you could come up with? Someone in a roundtable saying "I don't think FOX should talk about someone from CNN"? Pretty weak.

I figured it fit perfectly with PapaG talking about CNN being bias to show a clip of a commentator on Fox "News" saying Fox shouldn't be talking about the bias on CNN.

I'm sorry that went over your head.

 

[Idog1976]

Here Yakbladder. I did the research for you. These put things into fairly concise terms.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13239

For a longer allegory with footnotes to actual historical events:

http://www.wepin.com/why/earthp5.html

You can also look up Money as Debt on youtube.

The point is, regardless of the original intentions things have gone awry. I subscribe to the camp of intent of Central Bankers to gain greater control over physical resources in exchange for worthless paper. It doesn't really matter what their intent was, it's clear that the current intent is, that is they intend to create a one world currency system. By itself it is neither good nor bad. However, the implementation is everything. In all likelihood it will be a VERY undemocratic process. If it is anything like prior Central Banks that masquerade as governmental bodies when they are infact the anti-thesis of a democratic institution then I can only imagine this would be ruinous for the globe. The soverignty implications are also quite clear.

Maxiep's idea of a balanced budget amendment will only work when the issuer of currency is the government itself. If the Central Bank disagreed with the government it could easily exacerbate problems e.g. the Great Depression being exacerbated greatly by the then FED govenors as stated by Bernake himself:

http://www.federalreserve.gov/BOARDDOCS/SPEECHES/2002/20021108/default.htm

mind you that is on the FED's own website.

Funny that they can't be listed as government in the white pages (look this up you will find them next to Federal Express in the business section not the government) yet they can get a dot.gov website address.

 

[maxiep]

Uh, of course I do. You think i'm outraged at Sean Hannity? LOL. That guy is completely irrelevant.

I'm just simply in awe that you seem so oblivious to how messed up their actual "news" broadcasts are (outside of Shep Smith). I guess its just because you agree with it. Comparing the MSNBC and Fox "news" (excluding opinion parts), I think MSNBC is more balanced in their reporting, honestly.

So in your opinion Brit Hume was a raging righty? Bret Baier? Now let's take a look at guys like David Schuster and Anderson Cooper. It's not even close as to which ones are closer to the center than the wings.

You are obviously not going to admit that the channel you are so ideologically close to is not actual news.

I'm closest ideologically to CNBC. Nice try, though. I'm no social conservative. I believe in freedom vs. government control. Your belief system is far more cookie cutter than mine.

Again, watch "Outfoxed".

You really need to try watching a documentary that is more than a hit job. I bet you think Michael Moore is revelatory.

I figured it fit perfectly with PapaG talking about CNN being bias to show a clip of a commentator on Fox "News" saying Fox shouldn't be talking about the bias on CNN.

I'm sorry that went over your head.

It wasn't a FOX commentator, though. It was a guest. Again, you need to separate commentary from news. I keep asking you to do so, you keep telling me you have and you still are getting the two confused. Would you, by chance, be DaRizzle's 40 year old group member?

 

[Shooter]

Fox News, whether you like it or not, is an important part of American society. The reason is simple: it provides a "contrary" voice to the left-leaning media in this country, which is prevalent, and it provides an "opposition" voice to the party in power right now.

For the lefties out there, wouldn't you want CNN or ABC hounding a Republican administration day and night, looking for corruption?? Of course, you would.

Case closed.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

To me the article reads as being very slanted against Obama . . . but in general I agree with the idea that it is a bad idea for the white house staff to get wrapped into a war of words with a media outlet.

I wonder if the administration is getting frustrated with public opinion of Obama these days . . . if not, why take on a battle with Fox. Just doesn't make much sense to me and comes across as desperate.

 

[maxiep]

To me the article reads as being very slanted against Obama . . . but in general I agree with the idea that it is a bad idea for the white house staff to get wrapped into a war of words with a media outlet.

I wonder if the administration is getting frustrated with public opinion of Obama these days . . . if not, why take on a battle with Fox. Just doesn't make much sense to me and comes across as desperate.

What's the old saying? Never get into a war with an entity that buys ink by the barrel? It's a real mistake by the Administration. If they have the courage of their convictions, they should be confident they'll be able to show up on FOX and make them look foolish for opposing President Obama's policies.

 

[mook]

What's the old saying? Never get into a war with an entity that buys ink by the barrel? It's a real mistake by the Administration. If they have the courage of their convictions, they should be confident they'll be able to show up on FOX and make them look foolish for opposing President Obama's policies.

As somebody who likes open debate, I'd like to see the administration appear on there.

From a strategic perspective, though, I can see why they don't. Most people who watch Fox aren't going to budge in their views. Obama isn't going to convince anybody. Just imagine Shooter sitting through a 20 minute interview with Obama and being convinced of anything good about our president. Ain't. Gonna. Happen.

On the other hand, Obama has proven that he can pretty much live with right wing media sniping at him. In fact, it doesn't really matter.

If a right wing media outlet like Fox were so important anymore to American thought, would Obama have won? Would the Democratic party have scored so hugely in the last election? Wouldn't there be much more support for the wars? Or Dubya?

If Beck, Hannity, O'Reilly and the rest were such kingmakers, would McCain have been the Republican candidate? Would Palin have poled so badly among voters?

Fox news is important to political media the same way Apple is important to computer manufacturers. Sure, it's huge. Just like there are a lot of Macintoshes out there. But relative to the overall US population, it's not terribly representative, or even watched.

The right more and more resembles a pack of Mac fanboys, complimenting themselves on how true blue and sleek their product is, how without compromise it is. They'd never dare be in the same room with one of those disgusting and inefficient and ugly Windows PC's, no matter that it's what the majority of Americans are (ie, not conservative Republicans).

Now, it appears, after years of getting sneered at, liberals come to conclude it's just not worth disrupting the fan club. In fact, the less they do to actually confront them, the more the fanboys will just compete among themselves about who is the most true blue, driving themselves even more to the fringe. After so thoroughly demonizing the word "liberal", they now seem to have turned their attention to the idea "moderate". And they don't seem to realize that it's a lot harder to demonize something that most people are.

IMO, the problem isn't Obama's. The echo chamber hasn't hurt him yet, and it's certainly done its best. It's not really a problem for Fox, either. They have a captive audience--where else can the fan boys go?

This is a problem for the Republican party. They have to realize at some point that it's not good enough to have 100% of a steadily shrinking base. They need to break free of the echo chamber and figure out a way to live with *gasp* ideas like "moderate" and "compromise." It's not going to be easy, though. Their media is against them.

I hope they do, and soon. I'm liberal, but I'm not insane. One part rule is never a good thing in the long run.

 

[mook]

Actually, I should revise that and say that Fox has been a problem for Obama. Clearly their coverage of the tea baggers and the "death panel" nonsense hurt him. I would amend it to say that it hasn't been an insurmountable problem. But all the obstacles like this in the past (the "madrassa" thing, Rev Wright, etc) he overcame without really confronting Fox.

I'd also add that I don't see the strategic benefit of calling Fox out. If he wants to ignore them, ignore them. It always looks silly to tell everyone you know that you don't want to talk to somebody.

 

[Denny Crane]

The white house attacking fox news is akin to them throwing raw meat in the cages of Obama's base of voters. The MoveOn.org, Huffington Post and DailyKos crowd.

W left office with a terrible approval rating, which indicates he didn't keep his base happy. Legitimately, his base would be at least 40% of the population and his ratings would be that high, no?

Yet 40% is on the low side. Republicans won seats in 2000, 2002, and 2004, while Democrats are pegged to lose seats and maybe control of the House (the way they're headed).

What Fox ultimately can be is the megaphone for the opposition. What's lacking is a leader of the Gingrich (contract for america) or Reagan. I don't see anyone like that even in the wings, other than Newt, and he has enough skeletons in his closet to be dealt with.

 

[bluefrog]

The white house attacking fox news is akin to them throwing raw meat in the cages of Obama's base of voters. The MoveOn.org, Huffington Post and DailyKos crowd.

W left office with a terrible approval rating, which indicates he didn't keep his base happy. Legitimately, his base would be at least 40% of the population and his ratings would be that high, no?

Yet 40% is on the low side. Republicans won seats in 2000, 2002, and 2004, while Democrats are pegged to lose seats and maybe control of the House (the way they're headed).

What Fox ultimately can be is the megaphone for the opposition. What's lacking is a leader of the Gingrich (contract for america) or Reagan. I don't see anyone like that even in the wings, other than Newt, and he has enough skeletons in his closet to be dealt with.

Agreed. It's interesting that they are going after Faux news and not Mitch McConnell or other republican leaders. It shows who they see as their strongest adversary.

 

[mook]

W left office with a terrible approval rating, which indicates he didn't keep his base happy. Legitimately, his base would be at least 40% of the population and his ratings would be that high, no?

Where do you get that estimate from? Says here that registered Republicans account for 32% of the population. Is Bush's base bigger than the entire Republican Party? I somehow doubt that.

When people usually talk about "the base," they usually aren't referring to everyone in a party. A lot of people check a box aligning themselves to a party without much conviction. I've always thought "the base" are the hardcore, true blue unwavering part of either party. The part who show up to stump speeches, listen to Limbaugh, watch Beck religiously, etc (or the liberal alternative on the other side). The tend to think of themselves as Very Important and Very Big and get their panties in a bunch over how many attended this or that rally. But the truth is that neither base really constitutes an overwhelming part of the population (thank goodness).

Bush's popularity didn't fall because he'd alienated his base. He'd alienated everyone else.

 

[Denny Crane]

Where do you get that estimate from? Says here that registered Republicans account for 32% of the population. Is Bush's base bigger than the entire Republican Party? I somehow doubt that.

When people usually talk about "the base," they usually aren't referring to everyone in a party. A lot of people check a box aligning themselves to a party without much conviction. I've always thought "the base" are the hardcore, true blue unwavering part of either party. The part who show up to stump speeches, listen to Limbaugh, watch Beck religiously, etc (or the liberal alternative on the other side). The tend to think of themselves as Very Important and Very Big and get their panties in a bunch over how many attended this or that rally. But the truth is that neither base really constitutes an overwhelming part of the population (thank goodness).

Bush's popularity didn't fall because he'd alienated his base. He'd alienated everyone else.

The republican base is 40%, the democratic base is 20%. You're right that it isn't about voter registration, it's about who the voters elect. As I pointed out, they elected Republicans in 1994, then Bush in 2000, then increased republican majorities in both houses in 2002, then re-elected Bush in 2004 and increased the majorities again.

What we have in between is "throw the bums out" and that mentality is not over - it'll affect the democrats soon enough.

The country is right of center. When Clinton governed to the left he got blasted. When he figured out to govern right of center, he was enormously popular. Even so, he never won the presidency with 50% of the vote, though his approval rating was over 60% (more than 10% higher than Obama's now) even during the impeachment.

Bush clearly lost the bulk of his base. He won reelection with over 50% and lost 30%+ in approval ratings by the time he left. The reasons are not because of the wars, but because of the big spending and big spending on social programs, his position of amnesty for illegal immigrants (he was governor of Texas, speaks fluent Spanish, what would he know about it?), and that sort of thing.

There was a virulent hatred of the guy on the left from the time he was elected to the time he finished his second term. But they couldn't get motivated to elect a Democrat in his place, or Ralph Nader, or whoever.

These things are what I observe and have long been backed by the polling data and election results.