PDA

View Full Version : FOXLEAKS..making stuff up.



Qtec
02-10-2011, 09:24 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">FOXLEAKS: How Bill Sammon Slanted Fox's Cairo Speech Coverage

February 08, 2011 11:00 am ET by Simon Maloy

On June 4, 2009, a couple of hours after President Obama delivered his much-anticipated speech in Cairo regarding America's relationship with the Muslim world, Fox News Washington managing editor Bill Sammon sent an email to Fox staff pointing out that Obama did not use "the words 'terror,' 'terrorist' or 'terrorism.' "

The email, which did not include any text beyond the subject line, read as follows:

From: Sammon, Bill
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 9:23 AM
To: 169 -SPECIAL REPORT; 069 -Politics; 036 -FOX.WHU; 030 -Root (FoxNews.Com); 050 -Senior Producers; 051 -Producers
Cc: Clemente, Michael; Stack, John; Wallace, Jay
Subject: FYI: My cursory check of Obama's 6,000-word speech to the Muslim world did not turn up the words "terror," "terrorist" or "terrorism"

Sammon's "cursory check" quickly became the editorial focus for Fox News journalists covering Obama's speech, and was repeated (in some instances almost verbatim) by the network's hosts. </div></div>

We all know Fox is 'fair and balanced' /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif but....it gets better.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Obama's speech ended just after 7 a.m. EDT on June 4. Sammon sent his email at 9:23 a.m., informing Fox journalists: "My cursory check of Obama's 6,000-word speech to the Muslim world did not turn up the words 'terror,' 'terrorist' or 'terrorism.' "

<span style='font-size: 17pt'>Ten minutes later, Sammon appeared on America's Newsroom</span> -- one of Fox's supposedly objective daytime "news" shows -- with host Megyn Kelly.

Introducing the segment, Kelly said: "Well, the president talked a lot in his speech today about reaching out to Muslims. What he did not talk a lot about was terror." The on-screen text for the segment asked: "Why didn't Pres Obama use the word 'terror' in Cairo speech?"

Kelly asked Sammon what he made of Obama not mentioning <u>"terror, the war on terror, or terrorism."</u>

Sammon responded, "Well, I make of it that he has taken us off a war footing as a nation." </div></div>

The link gives many examples of how Fox hosts, pundits and guests ran with Sammon,s email. here is a classic.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Sean Hannity accused Obama of "blaming America first," saying on the June 4 edition of Hannity: "And that is our headline tonight: Blaming America first. Now in his remarks, Mr. Obama refused to use these words -- <u>'terror,' 'terrorism,' 'terrorist'</u> -- or even that term 'manmade disasters.' But he repeatedly quoted the Quran and even accused Americans of overreacting to the 9-11 terror attacks." Appearing on Hannity's program, Fox News contributor Newt Gingrich agreed with that analysis:

HANNITY: The word "terror" didn't come up. "Terrorism" didn't come up. "Terrorist" didn't come up. "Manmade disaster" didn't come up. Don't you think that that would be -- those would be vital terms to use in a speech like this?

GINGRICH: Well, I think you captured part of what's going on here, which is you have a man who's in considerable conflict with himself. On the one hand, he's trying to reach out to the Muslim world and trying to open up a new dialogue. On the other hand, he just can't help himself in blaming America first and saying things about America.
</div></div>

Journalists report news, they don't make it up. This is why Fox isn't a news channel.

Q

LWW
02-11-2011, 03:25 AM
Can you show us where he actually used any of those words in that speech?

What's that?

He didn't use them?

What will they tell you to say next? Perhaps, just once, you will check out what he actually said before you sacrifice your dignity in defense of dear leader.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"The Egyptian people have been told that there was a transition of authority, but it is not yet clear that this transition is immediate, meaningful or sufficient. Too many Egyptians remain unconvinced that the government is serious about a genuine transition to democracy, and it is the responsibility of the government to speak clearly to the Egyptian people and the world. The Egyptian government must put forward a credible, concrete and unequivocal path toward genuine democracy, and they have not yet seized that opportunity.

"As we have said from the beginning of this unrest, the future of Egypt will be determined by the Egyptian people. But the United States has also been clear that we stand for a set of core principles. We believe that the universal rights of the Egyptian people must be respected, and their aspirations must be met. We believe that this transition must immediately demonstrate irreversible political change, and a negotiated path to democracy. To that end, we believe that the emergency law should be lifted. We believe that meaningful negotiations with the broad opposition and Egyptian civil society should address the key questions confronting Egypts future: protecting the fundamental rights of all citizens; revising the Constitution and other laws to demonstrate irreversible change; and jointly developing a clear roadmap to elections that are free and fair.

"We therefore urge the Egyptian government to move swiftly to explain the changes that have been made, and to spell out in clear and unambiguous language the step by step process that will lead to democracy and the representative government that the Egyptian people seek. Going forward, it will be essential that the universal rights of the Egyptian people be respected. There must be restraint by all parties. Violence must be forsaken. It is imperative that the government not respond to the aspirations of their people with repression or brutality. The voices of the Egyptian people must be heard.

"The Egyptian people have made it clear that there is no going back to the way things were: Egypt has changed, and its future is in the hands of the people. Those who have exercised their right to peaceful assembly represent the greatness of the Egyptian people, and are broadly representative of Egyptian society. We have seen young and old, rich and poor, Muslim and Christian join together, and earn the respect of the world through their non-violent calls for change. In that effort, young people have been at the forefront, and a new generation has emerged. They have made it clear that Egypt must reflect their hopes, fulfill their highest aspirations, and tap their boundless potential. In these difficult times, I know that the Egyptian people will persevere, and they must know that they will continue to have a friend in the United States of America."</div></div>

Hoist by thine own petard ... on a daily basis. (http://af.reuters.com/article/egyptNews/idAFN1026406920110211)

LWW

Qtec
02-11-2011, 04:21 AM
Try and keep up. my post links to comments on a speech obama made in Cairo.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Obama's speech ended just after 7 a.m. EDT on <span style='font-size: 20pt'>June 4. </span></div></div>

What's the date today?

Q

LWW
02-11-2011, 04:39 AM
Well, I will admit I pay ever less attention to the details of your daily rote recitation of far left talking points.

That being said, can you show me where in used any of those words in that zSPEECH (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/04/us/politics/04obama.text.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1)?

What's that?

6,093 words and none of them were terror, terrorism, or terrorist?

Fox told the truth?

All my points are still valid?

You insist upon being hoist by thine own petard yet again?

At least you are consistent.

LWW

LWW
02-11-2011, 03:18 PM
So what did they make up Snoopy?

LWW

LWW
02-11-2011, 03:20 PM
Whatever happened to this guy?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you make a claim, you post a link.

Q
</div></div>

LWW

Qtec
02-12-2011, 01:17 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Introducing the segment, Kelly said: "Well, the president talked a lot in his speech today about reaching out to Muslims. <span style='font-size: 14pt'><u>What he did not talk a lot about was terror.</u></span>" </div></div>

<span style='font-size: 17pt'>Actually he did, he just didn't use the word terror.</span>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">By contrast, in reporting that Obama did not use the words "terror" or its variants, The New York Times' Jeff Zeleny and Alan Cowell wrote on June 4: "That was a departure from the language used by the Bush administration, but one that some Middle East experts suggested reflected a belief by the new administration that overuse had made the words inflammatory." In a separate June 4 article on regional reactions to the speech, the Times' Michael Slackman reported that Obama's speech "was also embraced for what it did not do: use the word terrorism, broadly seen here as shorthand for an attack on Islam." </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> In his speech, Obama addressed at length the issue of <span style='font-size: 14pt'>"violent extremism":</span>

The first issue that we have to confront is violent extremism in all of its forms.

In Ankara, I made clear that America is not -- and never will be -- at war with Islam. (Applause.) <span style='font-size: 14pt'>We will, however, relentlessly confront violent extremists who pose a grave threat to our security</span> -- because we reject the same thing that people of all faiths reject: the killing of innocent men, women, and children. And it is my first duty as President to protect the American people.

The situation in Afghanistan demonstrates America's goals, and our need to work together. Over seven years ago, the United States pursued al Qaeda and the Taliban with broad international support. We did not go by choice; we went because of necessity. I'm aware that there's still some who would question or even justify the events of 9/11. But let us be clear: Al Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 people on that day. The victims were innocent men, women and children from America and many other nations who had done nothing to harm anybody. And yet al Qaeda chose to ruthlessly murder these people, claimed credit for the attack, and even now states their determination to kill on a massive scale. They have affiliates in many countries and are trying to expand their reach. These are not opinions to be debated; these are facts to be dealt with.

Now, make no mistake: We do not want to keep our troops in Afghanistan. We see no military -- we seek no military bases there. It is agonizing for America to lose our young men and women. It is costly and politically difficult to continue this conflict. We would gladly bring every single one of our troops home if we could be confident that there were not violent extremists in Afghanistan and now Pakistan determined to kill as many Americans as they possibly can. But that is not yet the case.

And that's why we're partnering with a coalition of 46 countries. And despite the costs involved, America's commitment will not weaken. Indeed, none of us should tolerate these extremists. They have killed in many countries. They have killed people of different faiths -- but more than any other, they have killed Muslims. Their actions are irreconcilable with the rights of human beings, the progress of nations, and with Islam. The Holy Koran teaches that whoever kills an innocent is as -- it is as if he has killed all mankind. (Applause.) And the Holy Koran also says whoever saves a person, it is as if he has saved all mankind. (Applause.) The enduring faith of over a billion people is so much bigger than the narrow hatred of a few. Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism -- it is an important part of promoting peace.

Now, we also know that military power alone is not going to solve the problems in Afghanistan and Pakistan. That's why we plan to invest $1.5 billion each year over the next five years to partner with Pakistanis to build schools and hospitals, roads and businesses, and hundreds of millions to help those who've been displaced. That's why we are providing more than $2.8 billion to help Afghans develop their economy and deliver services that people depend on.

Let me also address the issue of Iraq. Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq was a war of choice that provoked strong differences in my country and around the world. Although I believe that the Iraqi people are ultimately better off without the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, I also believe that events in Iraq have reminded America of the need to use diplomacy and build international consensus to resolve our problems whenever possible. (Applause.) Indeed, we can recall the words of Thomas Jefferson, who said: "I hope that our wisdom will grow with our power, and teach us that the less we use our power the greater it will be."

Today, America has a dual responsibility: to help Iraq forge a better future -- and to leave Iraq to Iraqis. And I have made it clear to the Iraqi people -- (applause) -- I have made it clear to the Iraqi people that we pursue no bases, and no claim on their territory or resources. Iraq's sovereignty is its own. And that's why I ordered the removal of our combat brigades by next August. That is why we will honor our agreement with Iraq's democratically elected government to remove combat troops from Iraqi cities by July, and to remove all of our troops from Iraq by 2012. (Applause.) We will help Iraq train its security forces and develop its economy. But we will support a secure and united Iraq as a partner, and never as a patron.

And finally, just as America can never tolerate violence by extremists, we must never alter or forget our principles. Nine-eleven was an enormous trauma to our country. The fear and anger that it provoked was understandable, but in some cases, it led us to act contrary to our traditions and our ideals. We are taking concrete actions to change course. I have unequivocally prohibited the use of torture by the United States, and I have ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed by early next year. (Applause.)

So America will defend itself, respectful of the sovereignty of nations and the rule of law. And we will do so in partnership with Muslim communities which are also threatened. The sooner the extremists are isolated and unwelcome in Muslim communities, the sooner we will all be safer.

Nonetheless, several media figures and outlets focused on Obama not using the words "terror" or its variants but did not discuss why Obama instead used the term "violent extremism,"</div></div>

Q.. link (http://mediamatters.org/blog/201102080014)

LWW
02-12-2011, 02:25 AM
That doesn't support your initial claim ...

Now ... as your link touches on, why do you think he so obviously avoided theuse of these words?

This isn't the only instance of the regime doing this.

LWW

Gayle in MD
02-14-2011, 09:29 AM
The right is expert at making things up. One poster you often quote on here, doesn't get anything, and hence, says people didn't make their point, but then, that poster never makes a point, other than proving how ignorant he is.

Republican revisionism.
It's a way of life for the RW radicals we have on here.

G.

bobroberts
02-14-2011, 12:14 PM
This is as funny as Obama trying to take credit for winning the war in Iraq.
Besides haven't you figured it out that Fox is the most watched news station in the USA.
I guess everyone else is wrong but you Q ?

Soflasnapper
02-14-2011, 12:54 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bobroberts</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This is as funny as Obama trying to take credit for winning the war in Iraq.
Besides haven't you figured it out that Fox is the most watched news station in the USA.
I guess everyone else is wrong but you Q ?
</div></div>

Obama deserves credit for continuing the withdrawal plan laid out, and with a firm ending timeline date, btw, by Bush. This DID mean ending the war as regards our combat mission and occupation.

Fox's ratings for the news are dwarfed by even the least-rated network news broadcast. Combining the three network news ratings yields probably about 10 times the viewership of news on Fox.

bobroberts
02-14-2011, 01:45 PM
For a cable network they actually have a higher viewer-ship per household. They beat all 3 this past election.

pooltchr
02-14-2011, 01:49 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Fox's ratings for the news are dwarfed by even the least-rated network news broadcast. Combining the three network news ratings yields probably about 10 times the viewership of news on Fox. </div></div>

So why is the left so obsessed with them? From what you are saying, FOX is hardly even a blip on the radar.

Steve

Gayle in MD
02-14-2011, 02:00 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bobroberts</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This is as funny as Obama trying to take credit for winning the war in Iraq.
Besides haven't you figured it out that Fox is the most watched news station in the USA.
I guess everyone else is wrong but you Q ?
</div></div>

Obama deserves credit for continuing the withdrawal plan laid out, and with a firm ending timeline date, btw, by Bush. This DID mean ending the war as regards our combat mission and occupation.

Fox's ratings for the news are dwarfed by even the least-rated network news broadcast. Combining the three network news ratings yields probably about 10 times the viewership of news on Fox. </div></div>

<span style="color: #990000">OMG!

Is there anyone stupid enough to think ANYTHING was WON in Iraq, except OIL CONTRACTS, for the same corporate, fascist, cronies of the Bush/Cheney/Rice cartel????

Stunning ignorance! Secret Energy Policies, between Cheney, and the corporate Oil CEO's???? since when did America, have <span style='font-size: 17pt'>SECRET ENERGY POLICIES????</span>

cheney, Bush and Rice, were all in bed with the same Corporate Oil pigs who were being subsidized with American Tax Dollars, Compliments of the REPUBLICAN PARTY, same party which destroys Clean Air and Water regulations, to protect all of our health, same cause of our polluted country, raised the cancer rates from their poisons, as they have been Fracking their way across our country, destroying the water, and air, compliments of Cheney's halliburton Loophole.


The Bush/Cheney/Rice, OIL CARTEL, wasted the Blood of our youth, and our treasure, then big oil, turned right around and raised our prices here, and took even MORE From the American Tax Payer????

OMG! We would never have been in Iraq, if not for Cheney's oil plans, "My understanding is that The Iraq War Is about OIL."
So said GREENSPAN! So said Powell's top advisor.

Iraq, was a no win war! The United States, as a country, didn't win a damned thing, WE LOST, it was a no win mess. Even every General said so, AFTER WE HAD BEEN BOGGED DOWN IN IRAQ FOR FOUR YEARS, ALL OPTIONS ARE "NO WIN OPTIONS."

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>"The worst foreign policy decision in America's history."

So said FIVE former Secretaries of State From Both Parties.

Iraq, was nothing but a business deal, between Dick Cheney, and Big Oil corporations, all of them hooked up with the American Enterprise Institute, and the Project For The New American Century.

Stunning ignorance is exampled by any American who hasn't at least learned this much about Bush, Cheney, Rice, and IRAQ!</span> </span>

http://tvnewslies.org/html/cheney_s_secrets.html

pooltchr
02-14-2011, 03:22 PM
You're repeating yourself.

What does your therapist think about that?

Steve

Soflasnapper
02-14-2011, 05:22 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Fox's ratings for the news are dwarfed by even the least-rated network news broadcast. Combining the three network news ratings yields probably about 10 times the viewership of news on Fox. </div></div>

So why is the left so obsessed with them? From what you are saying, FOX is hardly even a blip on the radar.

Steve </div></div>

This is by design.

The REAL harm is by the corporatist mainstream media, which passes notice when such flaming idiocy is so easily found in the outlier media source. It's a most effective distraction, allowing the framing of the Big Media to pass as conventional wisdom.

pooltchr
02-14-2011, 05:59 PM
Anyone who would consider the big 3 networks to be anything close to conventional wisdom has had a few too many sips from the party spoon. They totally supported Obama's campaign, and have worked very hard to protect him from himself. Sure, they will throw some softball challenges his way for apperances sake, but there is no doubt in any reasonable person's mind that the MSM is firmly on the port side of the ship.

Steve

bobroberts
02-14-2011, 06:08 PM
Gayle show us where we are getting all the oil from the middle east especially from Iraq?
You probably didn't even know that we only get about 15% of our oil from Saudi Arabia the rest from Canada and Mexico.
Your ignorance is bliss isn't it.
Too bad it wasn't you and your family being oppressed and no one comes to help. At least now they have their freedom.
Yes people lose lives fighting for it.

Soflasnapper
02-14-2011, 11:12 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Anyone who would consider the big 3 networks to be anything close to conventional wisdom has had a few too many sips from the party spoon. They totally supported Obama's campaign, and have worked very hard to protect him from himself. Sure, they will throw some softball challenges his way for apperances sake, but there is no doubt in any reasonable person's mind that the MSM is firmly on the port side of the ship.

Steve </div></div>

They support Obama's corporatist agenda because they are corporatists, and their last corporatist boy, whom they ALSO fawned over, had somewhat ruined the brand. So, meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

This is the same 'liberal' media that continues to have John McCain on the Sunday programs for what conceivable reason? I mean a RIDICULOUS number of times, and it continues to this day (something like 19 times since the election. McCain referred to the press as his 'base' a couple of years back, and it wasn't a joke.)

I am reminded of Jack Welch, then-CEO of GE, in the election night coverage room of NBC, plaintively asking 'who can I get to call Florida for Bush?' I am reminded of the firing of Phil Donahue, who had the largest audience of any on MSNBC at the time, when he openly opposed starting the Iraq war, while the rest of the television media had 96% pro-war guests.

That Obama has hewed entirely to the neo-con/Bush national security policies is attested to by the howling and gnashing of teeth from the left, and a long list of GOP national security types praising his 'continuity' in policy.

LWW
02-15-2011, 01:32 AM
[quote=SoflasnapperThat Obama has hewed entirely to the neo-con/Bush national security policies is attested to by the howling and gnashing of teeth from the left[/quote]

Who are they?

Were are they?

They certainly do not exist within the cabal here.

LWW

LWW
02-15-2011, 04:07 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The right is expert at making things up.

G. </div></div>

So when will someone say what it is that they made up?

LWW

LWW
02-15-2011, 04:10 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">[color:#990000]OMG! Stunning ignorance! Secret Energy Policies, between Cheney, and the corporate Oil CEO's???? since when did America, have <span style='font-size: 17pt'>SECRET ENERGY POLICIES????</span></div></div>


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">OOOOOOOOOWWWW, the President has meetings behind closed doors!</div></div>

Hoist by thine own petard ... but, you should be used to it by now.

LWW

Qtec
02-15-2011, 05:12 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The right is expert at making things up.

G. </div></div>

So when will someone say what it is that they made up?

LWW </div></div>

Everything. They attacking him for something he didn't say!

He said 'violent extremist' instead of 'terrorist'. So What?

Basically they ignored the speech - what he DID say - and made up a story about what he didn't say.

Is that a news channel?

Q

LWW
02-15-2011, 05:27 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The right is expert at making things up.

G. </div></div>

So when will someone say what it is that they made up?

LWW </div></div>

Everything. They attacking him for something he didn't say!

He said 'violent extremist' instead of 'terrorist'. So What?

Basically they ignored the speech - what he DID say - and made up a story about what he didn't say.

Is that a news channel?

Q


</div></div>

NO ... they didn't.

They say he didn't use three words, you agree he didn't say them.

So ... what did they make up?

Next deflection?

LWW

LWW
02-15-2011, 05:30 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">[quote=LWW]Basically they ignored the speech - what he DID say - and made up a story about what he didn't say.

Is that a news channel?

Q


</div></div>

And there you almost get it?

Yes, they put their own spin on the speech.

I don't agree with such "JOURNALISM" tactics ... but I'm enlightened enough to know they did the same thing MSNBC/CNN/HNN/CNBC/ABC/CBS/NBC/NYT/LAT did for years against Bush.

I don't like either side doing it, you OTOH wear blinders.

LWW

Qtec
02-15-2011, 05:41 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yes, they put their own spin on the speech. </div></div>

NO THEY DIDN'T.

Concentrating of words NEVER SPOKEN has nothing to do with the speech.

Did he say the word Moose? Satan? Sandwich? Hamburger?

What other words didn't he use........Oh I know...Rumsfeld is a lying SOB. I can think of more....... /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

Q

LWW
02-15-2011, 05:50 AM
I don't believe he did.

But, since he didn't, by your logic you made it up that he didn't.

LWW

Qtec
02-15-2011, 05:57 AM
No I didn't.

Q

Qtec
02-15-2011, 06:00 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I don't believe he did.

But, since he didn't, <u>by your logic you made it up that he didn't</u>.

LWW </div></div>

No I didn't.

Take a pill, calm down and listen.

I said , the story is not what what words he didn't use, its more pertinent and relevant to comment on what he did say.

Q

LWW
02-15-2011, 06:33 AM
Actually ... the story was what words he didn't use and your claim that they made it up that he didn't use them.

Next insanity please.

LWW

Qtec
02-15-2011, 06:51 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> "Just what the hell did you mean, you bastard, when you said we couldn't punish you?" said the corporal who could take shorthand reading from his steno pad.

"All right," said the colonel. "Just what the hell did you mean?"

"I didn't say you couldn't punish me, sir."

"When," asked the colonel.

"When what, sir?"

"Now you're asking me questions again."

"I'm sorry, sir. I'm afraid I don't understand your question."

"When didn't you say we couldn't punish you? Don't you understand my question?"

"No, sir, I don't understand."

"You've just told us that. Now suppose you answer my question."

"But how can I answer it?"

"That's another question you're asking me."

"I'm sorry, sir. But I don't know how to answer it. I never said you couldn't punish me."

<span style='font-size: 17pt'>"Now you're telling us what you did say. I'm asking you to tell us when you didn't say it."

Clevinger took a deep breath. "I always didn't say you couldn't punish me, sir."
</span>
"That's much better, Mr. Clevinger, even though it's a bare-faced lie. Didn't you whisper that we couldn't punish you to that other dirty son of a bitch we don't like? What's his name?"

"Yossarian, sir," Lieutenant Scheisskopf said.

"Yes, Yossarian. That's right. Yossarian. Yossarian? Is that his name? Yossarian? What the hell kind of name is Yossarian?"

Lieutenant Scheisskopf had the facts at his fingertips. "It's Yossarian's name, sir," he explained. </div></div>

Q

LWW
02-15-2011, 06:58 AM
Well ... in all fairness ... I asked for insanity and you delivered it.

Thanks, I guess.

LWW

Gayle in MD
02-15-2011, 10:27 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Anyone who would consider the big 3 networks to be anything close to conventional wisdom has had a few too many sips from the party spoon. They totally supported Obama's campaign, and have worked very hard to protect him from himself. Sure, they will throw some softball challenges his way for apperances sake, but there is no doubt in any reasonable person's mind that the MSM is firmly on the port side of the ship.

Steve </div></div>

They support Obama's corporatist agenda because they are corporatists, and their last corporatist boy, whom they ALSO fawned over, had somewhat ruined the brand. So, meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

This is the same 'liberal' media that continues to have John McCain on the Sunday programs for what conceivable reason? I mean a RIDICULOUS number of times, and it continues to this day (something like 19 times since the election. McCain referred to the press as his 'base' a couple of years back, and it wasn't a joke.)

I am reminded of Jack Welch, then-CEO of GE, in the election night coverage room of NBC, plaintively asking 'who can I get to call Florida for Bush?' I am reminded of the firing of Phil Donahue, who had the largest audience of any on MSNBC at the time, when he openly opposed starting the Iraq war, while the rest of the television media had 96% pro-war guests.

That Obama has hewed entirely to the neo-con/Bush national security policies is attested to by the howling and gnashing of teeth from the left, and a long list of GOP national security types praising his 'continuity' in policy. </div></div>

Yes, and who was the most frequent guest on Meet The Press in 2009?

Gingrich, who didn't even hold a political office!

How many times was Nancy Pelosi, The Speaker Of The House, on MTP in 2009?

ZERO!

Fox, is not MSM. Fox is a Republican Propaganda Organization, as proven by their FREE AIR TIME FOR REPUBLICANS DURING THE CAMPAIGN, EQUAL TO BILLIONS IN REPUBLICAN CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS.


Shouldn't they be forced to present themselves as such, instead of calling themselves a News Organization????

Wasn't this illegal at one time?

Who changed those laws????

Who is trying to destroy Public Broadcasting?

The FUX NOISE slurpies, can't handle the reality that their information comes from propaganda, even when we show them the proof, with clips to their doctored film!

Here's a funny sentence from Gingrich:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">GINGRICH: Well, I think you captured part of what's going on here, which is you have a man who's in considerable conflict with himself. </div></div>

LMAO! This from a man who spent his life married to one woman, while screwing another one.

Repiglicans are the face of hypocrisy, always have beenn, always will be. They are pawns of the wealthy, and the Military Industrial congressional complex.

Let the people starve, but don't stop making and selling bombs, don't prevent the pollution that's running canncer rates through the roof, and don't allow the Stem Cell research, to cure the worse diseases!

Knuckle Dragging Neanderthals! Perfect description!

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smirk.gif

LWW
02-15-2011, 02:37 PM
So ... can you tell us what was made up?

LWW

Qtec
02-16-2011, 02:29 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So ... can you tell us what was made up?

LWW </div></div>

The controversy. Manufactured false outrage.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"Now you're telling us what you did say.<u> I'm asking you to tell us when you didn't say it."</u>

Clevinger took a deep breath. <u>"I always didn't say you couldn't punish me, sir."</u>

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>"That's much better, Mr. Clevinger, even though it's a bare-faced lie.</span> </div></div>

LOL

Q

LWW
02-16-2011, 05:56 AM
So you made the whole thing up?

Or, you just heard the lie you wanted ton believe and ran with it without so much as a question to it's accuracy?

Those are the only two possibilities that seem to be left to explain this thread?

LWW &lt;---Didn't make that up.

Qtec
02-16-2011, 06:33 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 26pt'>Obama drops Bush's 'war on terror'</span>


Comments (0) "BookmarkShare PrintPrint
By: Julie Mason <span style='font-size: 14pt'>11/11/10 </span>12:00 AM
White House correspondent

The return of former President George W. Bush to the public spotlight this week helped underscore how different some things are in Washington under his successor, President Obama. Like the "war on terror."

Bush still talks about it. Obama rarely does.

The war on terror was a constant refrain of the Bush presidency after the Sept. 11, 2001. terrorist attacks, a rhetorical construct Obama has uttered publicly fewer than half a dozen times since becoming president two years ago.

The phrase surfaces occasionally in budget documents, and Obama has offered some variations with "the global fight against extremism" or the "enduring struggle against terrorism."

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/white-house/2010/11/obama-drops-bushs-war-terror#ixzz1E7g58pUV
</div></div>

They couldn't attack Obama for what he said in his speech so the made up an attack based on what he didn't say. Even if it was reported<u> LONG ago</u> that Obama would not use the same inflammatory words of the Decider, they act surprised. Now its news?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Obama's speech ended just after 7 a.m. EDT on June 4. Sammon sent his email at 9:23 a.m., informing Fox journalists: "My cursory check of Obama's 6,000-word speech to the Muslim world did not turn up the words 'terror,' 'terrorist' or 'terrorism.' "

Ten minutes later, Sammon appeared on America's Newsroom -- one of Fox's supposedly objective daytime "news" shows -- with host Megyn Kelly.

Introducing the segment, Kelly said: "Well, the president talked a lot in his speech today about reaching out to Muslims. What he did not talk a lot about was terror." <span style="color: #990000"> Yes he did.</span>The on-screen text for the segment asked: "Why didn't Pres Obama use the word 'terror' in Cairo speech?" <span style="color: #990000"> No, he used the words 'extremists' and violent extremism etc.</span>

Kelly asked Sammon what he made of Obama not mentioning "terror, the war on terror, or terrorism."

Sammon responded, <u>"Well, I make of it that <span style='font-size: 14pt'>he has taken us off a war footing as a nation.</u></span>" <span style="color: #990000"> No he hasn't. <span style='font-size: 17pt'>Sammon just made that up! According to Obama's budget, the USA intends to spend $300 million a DAY in Afghanistan.</span> </span> </div></div>

A news channel reports the news, it doesn't make the news like Fox does.

Q

LWW
02-16-2011, 06:42 AM
So, again, your proof that they made it up is evidenced by showing that they told the truth?

The doublethink is strong in you Snoopy.

LWW

Qtec
02-16-2011, 06:46 AM
Ok, lets try another tack.



Obama didn't say terrorist, so what?

Q

Stretch
02-16-2011, 06:58 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Ok, lets try another tack.



Obama didn't say terrorist, so what?

Q </div></div>

So this is perfect for Fox who will now have a whole lot of nothing to report, as usuall. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif St.

Gayle in MD
02-19-2011, 10:30 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Stretch</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Ok, lets try another tack.



Obama didn't say terrorist, so what?

Q </div></div>

So this is perfect for Fox who will now have a whole lot of nothing to report, as usuall. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif St. </div></div>

Fox lied about the protestors in Wisconsin for a week, saying they were violent, fomennting fear, as the right ALWAYS DOES.

Here is my prediction.

When the Tea Party Zealots arrive, is when the violence will break out.

We saw Rand Paul's aides stomoping a woman's head and shoulders into the ground. We had the video. Proof. The right continues to lie about it to this day.

Lies, slander, Propaganda, and filthy dirty tricks, the ONLY methods used by the right.

They only get worse as time goes by. Murdoch should be in jail right now, for financing many multi millions, for the Republican Party with hours upon hours of campaigning time, free for Republican candidates.

the FCC should step in and force them to identify themselves as what they really are, The Republican Propaganda organization.
G.

G.

LWW
02-19-2011, 11:38 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Ok, lets try another tack.



Obama didn't say terrorist, so what?

Q </div></div>

Your thread was based on the entire premise that he did say it and Fox lied by saying he didn't.

You are a trip dude.

Let me guess ... the thread was really about spinach.

LWW

pooltchr
02-19-2011, 12:50 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

the FCC should step in and force them to identify themselves as what they really are, The Republican Propaganda organization.
G.

G. </div></div>

Your answer to everything...the government should use their muscle to silence anyone who doesn't agree with you!!

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

Steve

LWW
02-19-2011, 04:06 PM
Cabbage?

Is the thread topic cabbage?

LWW

cushioncrawler
02-19-2011, 05:25 PM
fauxNews shood be klosed.
mac.

The country's oldest and largest television station -- RCTV (Radio Caracas Television) -- was denied a renewal of its broadcast license in May 2007 and went off the air on open broadcast TV the following month. The station, along with others, had participated in the 2002 military coup that temporarily overthrew the elected president. However, the non-renewal of RCTV's broadcast license, which had given it a legal monopoly over a particular part of the broadcast spectrum, did not shut down RCTV -- as was commonly mis-reported in the international media. The station continued to broadcast through cable and satellite until January of 2010. Operating under the name RCTV International while still maintaining the same program content, RCTV claimed that it was an international station, and therefore exempt from the regulatory authority of the National Telecommunications Commission (CONATEL). This claim was rejected by the Venezuelan government after CONATEL concluded that RCTV's content and operations were 90% domestic and thus subject to CONATEL's broadcast regulations. RCTV continued to insist that it was not subject to domestic law, for example, regarding the broadcast of the President's speeches (a law that predates the Chávez presidency). The station was therefore shut down on January 24, 2010, pending court appeals.

LWW
02-20-2011, 03:31 AM
Why do you love tyrants so?

LWW

cushioncrawler
02-20-2011, 04:24 AM
Benevolent diktators are sayd to be the best gov.
And the best form of BD iz monarchy.
I know -- lets make Hugo the King of Venezuela -- King Hugo the 1st.
A modernday ShakeSpeare kood write a play. I can see Act 1, Scene 1. The camera closes in on King Hugo (looking bored) -- the court fool (Dubya) sits down next to Him.

Dubya (whispering in King's ear) -- "Sire. What this Kingdom needs iz war. War iz a sure cure for any malady. Efficacious in every case Sire".
mac.

LWW
02-20-2011, 08:31 AM
Apple sauce?

Was that the topic of the thread?

LWW