Commander Hope’n’Change the man-child whining about Fox News:
Where is his opinion of MSNBC? They are every bit as biased. This country elected a whiny little crybaby, not a leader.
[quote]skaz05 wrote:
Commander Hope’n’Change the man-child whining about Fox News:
Where is his opinion of MSNBC? They are every bit as biased. This country elected a whiny little crybaby, not a leader.[/quote]
The cattle will vote for him again anyway. They want their check; they want their benefits.
America is lurching toward National Socialism, with price controls and our version of a Gestapo.
Fox News pushes "a point of view that I disagree with.
above is a quote from the interview. Fox news is pro small govt, free enterprize, and they believe in showing both sides, so Obama disagrees with that, I smell a socialist.
FOX News believes in showing both sides???
Of what?
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
FOX News believes in showing both sides???
Of what?[/quote]
I meant they have left wing as well as right wing guests on.
[quote]SUPER-T wrote:
I smell a socialist.[/quote]
Well gee Super T, you figured it out.
OH NOES
Because he’s completely wrong y’know, Fox is the most impartial news network to have ever existed and is totally not under the subjugation of the Republican party.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
OH NOES
Because he’s completely wrong y’know, Fox is the most impartial news network to have ever existed and is totally not under the subjugation of the Republican party.[/quote]
You’re missing the point. Who gives a shit if he disagrees with their point of view? It’s called freedom of speech. That’s why him saying that was retarded. Oh wait I forgot, he’s not a big fan of free speech…after all, national security and stuff…
[quote]Makavali wrote:
OH NOES
Because he’s completely wrong y’know, Fox is the most impartial news network to have ever existed and is totally not under the subjugation of the Republican party.[/quote]
Not the point at all. Him calling it “destructive to America” is disgraceful in the utmost. I don’t watch fox news (or any cable news, I read mine). But you don’t cry about it. Neither Bush nor Clinton cried about the media beatings they received during their terms in such a way. Partisan pundits may have, but they didn’t themselves. The media as a whole haven’t even gone hard on him yet.
Get your fucking flame suit on and go to war in PR and the media if you think you can win. Or if you think your point of view is worthwhile. If not, get the hell out of the way for a real president with a thick skin. It’s not a cakewalk, it’s the Commander in Chief of a world power. Tough shit if it isn’t all candy and rainbows and band-aids to do the job.
“Never pick a fight with a man who buys his ink by the barrel.”
Not only is it wrong for obama to single out and attack a news organization, it’s stupid.
[quote]hungry4more wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
OH NOES
Because he’s completely wrong y’know, Fox is the most impartial news network to have ever existed and is totally not under the subjugation of the Republican party.[/quote]
You’re missing the point. Who gives a shit if he disagrees with their point of view? It’s called freedom of speech. That’s why him saying that was retarded. Oh wait I forgot, he’s not a big fan of free speech…after all, national security and stuff…[/quote]
You’re not referring to the same free speech that gives those who want the Mosque at Ground Zero are you? Because Obama supports that, but heaven forbid you disagree with the chosen one. If Obama says it, it must be true (sarcasm)
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
[quote]hungry4more wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
OH NOES
Because he’s completely wrong y’know, Fox is the most impartial news network to have ever existed and is totally not under the subjugation of the Republican party.[/quote]
You’re missing the point. Who gives a shit if he disagrees with their point of view? It’s called freedom of speech. That’s why him saying that was retarded. Oh wait I forgot, he’s not a big fan of free speech…after all, national security and stuff…[/quote]
You’re not referring to the same free speech that gives those who want the Mosque at Ground Zero are you? Because Obama supports that, but heaven forbid you disagree with the chosen one. If Obama says it, it must be true (sarcasm)[/quote]
He said:
[Laughs] Look, as president, I swore to uphold the Constitution, and part of that Constitution is a free press. We’ve got a tradition in this country of a press that oftentimes is opinionated. The golden age of an objective press was a pretty narrow span of time in our history. Before that, you had folks like Hearst who used their newspapers very intentionally to promote their viewpoints. I think Fox is part of that tradition â?? it is part of the tradition that has a very clear, undeniable point of view. It’s a point of view that I disagree with. It’s a point of view that I think is ultimately destructive for the long-term growth of a country that has a vibrant middle class and is competitive in the world. But as an economic enterprise, it’s been wildly successful. And I suspect that if you ask Mr. Murdoch what his number-one concern is, it’s that Fox is very successful.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/209395?RS_show_page=1
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
[quote]hungry4more wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
OH NOES
Because he’s completely wrong y’know, Fox is the most impartial news network to have ever existed and is totally not under the subjugation of the Republican party.[/quote]
You’re missing the point. Who gives a shit if he disagrees with their point of view? It’s called freedom of speech. That’s why him saying that was retarded. Oh wait I forgot, he’s not a big fan of free speech…after all, national security and stuff…[/quote]
You’re not referring to the same free speech that gives those who want the Mosque at Ground Zero are you? Because Obama supports that, but heaven forbid you disagree with the chosen one. If Obama says it, it must be true (sarcasm)[/quote]
He said:
[Laughs] Look, as president, I swore to uphold the Constitution, and part of that Constitution is a free press. We’ve got a tradition in this country of a press that oftentimes is opinionated. The golden age of an objective press was a pretty narrow span of time in our history. Before that, you had folks like Hearst who used their newspapers very intentionally to promote their viewpoints. I think Fox is part of that tradition â?? it is part of the tradition that has a very clear, undeniable point of view. It’s a point of view that I disagree with. It’s a point of view that I think is ultimately destructive for the long-term growth of a country that has a vibrant middle class and is competitive in the world. But as an economic enterprise, it’s been wildly successful. And I suspect that if you ask Mr. Murdoch what his number-one concern is, it’s that Fox is very successful.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/209395?RS_show_page=1
[/quote]
Rolling Stone? Really? You cite a mag that glorifies drugs, hollywood, narcissism, hedonism and dysfunctional culture in general. Awesome! I wonder how many lines of coke the author did while writing this.
[quote]PAINTRAINDave wrote:
[quote]SUPER-T wrote:
I smell a socialist.[/quote]
Well gee Super T, you figured it out.[/quote]
Nah, i have known all along. I just like to point it out incase some one else does not know
[quote]Rockscar wrote:
Rolling Stone? Really? You cite a mag that glorifies drugs, hollywood, narcissism, hedonism and dysfunctional culture in general. Awesome! I wonder how many lines of coke the author did while writing this. [/quote]
Heh, yes. The President conducts an interview with Rolling Stone to bash Fox News and otherwise the lament of objective journalism.
Also, score for the White House’s “shout out” that Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow were performing a great public service.
There is plenty of good and legitimate reasons to complain about the lack of objective journalism in this country - but the President doesn’t have the credibility to be one of the complainers.
As an aside, it is positively unpresidential to be so sensitive to critical news outfits (and petulent), but even more to the point, it wins you nothing. He doesn’t improve his standing among the people that have lost interest in him.
GL,
How do you sit there and talk shit about Fox News, for pointing out things that do not fall in line with the president and his plan, yet chest-thump about loving free speech? Hi pot, meet kettle.
This is typical Lib thinking… (only I am entitled.)
Libs can’t be racist, they can’t discriminate, they don’t have to follow the rules because they are always the victim, they deserve exemptions (and how dare you question the why of it.)
Not to hijack, but take a look at Meg Whitman. She hires a woman who produced a fake Drivers License AND Social Security Card, yet SHE is at fault for hiring an illegal alien ! She fires the lady when she admits to being illegal. If she asked if the pieces of ID were fake, she would be labeled a racist. The lady was being paid $23/hr, the Fed minimum wage at the time was $6.75/hr, who is the victim here?
[quote]skaz05 wrote:
Commander Hope’n’Change the man-child whining about Fox News:
Where is his opinion of MSNBC? They are every bit as biased. This country elected a whiny little crybaby, not a leader.[/quote]
He’s the best advertising they ever had! By deriding them he acknowledges they are very powerful and he is afraid of him…
Name another news organization a president was publicly afraid of?
Now, Max…
Admit it…you’re just mad because California may get “Moonbeam Brown” back as Governor!
By the way…is there really ANYBODY…conservative or liberal…that really “likes” that opportunist-of-all opportunist Gloria Allred? (Except for maybe Brown at this moment…)
Mufasa
Mufasa,
Trust me, this is going to backfire badly for Jerry “Moonbeam” Brown. Either way, we are so fucked in California, no matter who we get. Nut-Meg is a 2 faced liar, while Jerry ate one too many of those “special” brownies.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Now, Max…
Admit it…you’re just mad because California may get “Moonbeam Brown” back as Governor!
By the way…is there really ANYBODY…conservative or liberal…that really “likes” that opportunist-of-all opportunist Gloria Allred? (Except for maybe Brown at this moment…)
Mufasa
[/quote]
Seems like I am always having to vote on the “lesser of the evils” rather than someone I really like.