The Media is biased- it's official now

[BigPat]

Prove that I am wrong.

I already have.

No - you're WRONG dude. Plain and simple. I realize it must hurt to think you're WRONG. But face it - you're WRONG.

This bill has approximately $64 Billion - of which ACORN is getting a chunk. (ACORN is to receive a portion of 1.93 Billion of it.) There was an amendment on that bill that would prevent ACORN from getting any of that money until the investigation is over.

And you are WRONG. Because there IS an ongoing investigation into ACORN. But you probably think that the Democrats wanting to pull away from that investigation and investigate Sammy Sosa instead is better.

The argument is a false one because their is absolutely NO allocation of funds in the bill to ACORN. There is not an earmark for ACORN. This fake controversy is over ACORN being ELIGIBLE to apply for funds. There are no actual funds that are designated to go to ACORN. Furthermore, the only entity that would be even eligible to apply for funds is ACORN's housing arm, which is separate from the voter registration arm that is under investigation. To top it off, the housing arm of ACORN has said that they aren't even going to apply for these funds. This is a complete BS controversy. The claim that billions of dollars has been earmarked for ACORN is absolutely false.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/may/21/michele-bachmann/bachmann-claims-acorn-has-access-85-billion-federa/

When a bill goes up in the House - they are allowed 15 minutes of discussion per amendment - that does not equal a filibuster. The two KEY ISSUES were the amendment to deny money to ACORN and the investigation of Pelosi.

I didn't claim that it was a filibuster. I stated that it is simply a political maneuver, much like the filibuster that the GOP is so fond of using.

The ACORN issue is simply a fake controversy. I would like to see Pelosi get burned for her lying, but since it was not under oath I doubt that there is much that can happen regardless of an investigation.

Again you are WRONG. ON the Dem tossing around the FD - you are WRONG. It has been brought up. On saying that I stated Obama did. You are WRONG. I never stated that. YOU STATED THAT. Get it right or don't expect further response from me.

These discussions have taken place:

On February 4, 2009, Senator Debbie Stabenow] (Democrat of Michigan) told radio host and WorldNetDaily columnist Bill Press, when asked whether it was time to bring back the Doctrine:

“ I think it's absolutely time to pass a standard. Now, whether it's called the Fairness Standard, whether it's called something else — I absolutely think it's time to be bringing accountability to the airwaves. ”

When Press asked if she would seek Senate hearings on such accountability in 2009, she replied:

“ I have already had some discussions with colleagues and, you know, I feel like that's gonna happen. Yep. ”

A week later, on February 11, 2009, Senator Tom Harkin (Democrat of Iowa) told Press, "...we gotta get the Fairness Doctrine back in law again." Later in response to Press's assertion that "...they are just shutting down progressive talk from one city after another," Senator Harkin responded, "Exactly, and that's why we need the fair — that's why we need the Fairness Doctrine back."

The discussion have been going on for pushing the FD since mid-2008. Maybe you need to learn to google.

As I said in the last post, your statement was vague. You seemed to be implying that the Democrats are currently pushing the fairness doctrine. If that is your claim than that is wrong. If that's not what you are saying than my criticism of that claim does not apply. There has been no legislative push in Congress to institute a "fairness doctrine". The Fairness Doctrine in it's previous incarnation was a policy of the FCC. It ids notable that in the recent confirmation hearings of the FCC commissioner, he explicitly stated that he had no intention of reinstating the Fairness Doctrine.

Since you seem so fond of websearches, a yahoo news search of "fairness doctrine" for the last 4 months shows only mentions of the FCC confirmation hearings and this (http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/...009-05-29.html). There is not a forthcoming reestablishment of the Fairness Doctrine. It is another fake controversy that people like EL Gordo use to energize their supporters.

Just plain thinking would be YOUR friend. I don't parrot misinformation - I get my info from DC and from Lansing. That's part of my job. It's what I get paid to do.

So what is your job that gives you such great inside information from D.C. and Lansing? Are you a journalist? If so, where could I read your published work?

Grow up and stop trying to impress other people with all of your WRONG information and thoughts.

I have been very cordial with you in this and other threads. You seem to get quite upset when I challenge you incorrect claims. Perhaps you need to grow up?

I give you credit for sounding like you really believe in what you're saying but you need to tear yourself away from the TV and start talking to the people who are there (in DC and in your state capitol) to find out what's really going on. You'd be surprised at how much you really don't know and how much you should know but the news doesn't bother to tell you and your elected representatives aren't going to tell you unless you call them out on it.

I am a law enforcement officer in southern Arizona. I do not suck up to politicians in D.C. nor do I plan to do so anytime soon. For someone that claims to have inside sources in DC, your posts are unimpressive. You make a lot of wild and untrue claims and offer no evidence to support them. Are you a lobbyist rather than a journalist? If so, it would explain a lot....

[BigPat]

And now ABC is even refusing to take money from sponsors. I guess the pay-off they are planning on getting for allowing a one-sided report are going to be big.

ABC REFUSES OPPOSITION ADS DURING WHITE HOUSE SPECIAL
Wed Jun 17 2009 15:15:00 ET

ABC is refusing to air paid ads during its White House health care presentation, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned, including a paid-for alternative viewpoint!

The development comes a day after the network denied a request by the Republican National Committee to feature a representative of the party's views during the Obama special.

Conservatives for Patients Rights requested the rates to buy a 60-second spot immediately preceding 'Prescription for America'.

Statement from Rick Scott, chairman of Conservatives for Patients Rights:

"It is unfortunate - and unusual - that ABC is refusing to accept paid advertising that would present an alternative viewpoint for the White House health care event. Health care is an issue that touches every American and all potential pieces of legislation have carried a pricetag in excess of $1 trillion of taxpayers' money. The American people deserve a healthy, robust debate on this issue and ABC's decision - as of now - to exclude even paid advertisements that present an alternative view does a disservice to the public. Our organization is more than willing to purchase ad time on ABC to present an alternative viewpoint and our hope is that ABC will reconsider having such viewpoints be part of this crucial debate for the American people. We were surprised to hear that paid advertisements would not be accepted when we inquired and we would certainly be open to purchasing time if ABC would reconsider."

From FOX NEWS:

But ABC News spokesman Jeffrey Schneider told FOXNews.com that it has been a "longstanding" policy not to accept "advocacy" ads.

Schneider explained that the policy was established decades ago and only local ABC affiliates air issue ads.

"Local stations have different standards," he said, adding that ABC News refused to air Obama's infomercial the week before the presidential election in November because it did not meet the station's standards.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/18/critics-attack-abc-news-refusing-air-opposing-ads-obamas-health-care-special/

[OnceBitten]

Big Pat...

I'm not even going to bother with your post - I give you proof and either you can read or you are so far into your denial that it just doesn't register with you.

I see that you're a Border Patrol Agent, and I see how that may have had an effect on you. Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean should never have been charged and Bush was weak for just communing their sentences rather than giving them a full pardon. Sutton was wrong. He resigned in April of this year. He should have been let go looong before that. Gonzales appointed him - but Bush is also somewhat culpable for Sutton.

As far as any further conversation with you goes... I don't have the time or patience to deal with someone like you. If you're happy with the way you choose to believe - then go for it. Personally I am not happy when there is no accountability, no integrity and no honesty in our government. And people who will continue to elect and representation/leadership that lacks character are as much to blame as those in power. How often are you in contact with your own Senator or Representative? You'll find out more by doing to work and research yourself than by watching TV. Really.

[Seventy2002]

Well I am glad I watch FOX NEWS not ABC!!!

And you loved it when FOX was the President's cheerleader.

[Southflaguy]

This is unprecedented !...

[BigPat]

http://mediamatters.org/research/200906170034

After exclusive access, softball interviews during Bush admin, Fox News blasts ABC for White House exclusive
June 17, 2009 6:08 pm ET

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
EMBED

Embed this video:

SUMMARY: Fox News hosts and guests have criticized a scheduled ABC exclusive broadcast from the White House, but they failed to mention the extraordinary access Fox News had to President Bush and other officials, using those opportunities to lob softball questions and provide a platform for Bush administration talking points.

81 Comments

Fox News hosts and guests have been critical of ABC News over reports of a June 24 prime-time special, "Questions for the President: Prescription for America," to be broadcast exclusively by ABC News from the White House. One host, for example, agreed with a Republican National Committee complaint that ABC's special "will become a glorified infomercial" for the Obama administration. But in expressing concerns about the ABC News broadcast, those on Fox News did not make any attempt to distinguish -- nor even mention -- the extraordinary access Fox News had to President Bush, Vice President Cheney and other high-ranking administration members, using those opportunities to lob softball questions and provide an uncritical platform for administration talking points.

For instance, on the June 17 edition of Fox & Friends, co-host Gretchen Carlson read from a letter by RNC chief of staff Ken McKay stating that the RNC is "concerned this event will become a glorified infomercial to promote the Democrat [sic] agenda." Co-host Steve Doocy then stated, "The guy's got a good point." He later added, "Look, if you go inside the Blue Room [of the White House], and then you take a whole bunch of people and you put them in the East Room as well, it's gonna be a valentine to the president's health care agenda. ABC, right now, should stand for All Barack Channel." Doocy also said that "[u]nfortunately, you're probably going to have to tune from ABC to Fox to get both sides of the story." Later, on that day's edition of America's Newsroom, co-host Bill Hemmer stated that "ABC News now facing a bit of criticism for an upcoming prime-time special on the president's health care plan." His guest, Media Research Center communications director Seton Motley, then said that the special "is an all-day home field advantage play for Obama and his position on health care."

Similarly, on the June 16 edition of Hannity, host Sean Hannity repeatedly called the ABC special an "infomercial," stating of the network, "They're going to literally go to the White House, they're going to do all their shows from there." During the show, Jeri Thompson, wife of former Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson, also commented to Hannity: "ABC is going to be broadcasting from within the White House. Sort of like in Russia, you know, back in the days of the Politburo and the czars where the press, you know, lives in-house." Earlier that night on his Fox News show, in arguing that "we need to exercise a few of our rights, like speaking out and assembling," Glenn Beck remarked: "And the media, the watchdog of the government? ABC is going to broadcast from the White House on health care."

Additionally, on June 16, Fox Nation posted the headline, "State-Run Media? ABC Gives Obama Prime-Time to Tout Health Care," which linked to a Drudge Report article:

But such criticism ignores the fact that the Bush administration repeatedly gave exclusive access to Fox News, which often used such opportunities to ask softball questions and run specials about the administration. For instance:

* During an exclusive interview with then-President Bush on the June 8, 2005, edition of Your World, host Neil Cavuto asked Bush questions such as: "Let me ask you about the economy, sir. Almost any objective read tells you that we're still doing very, very well. ... Do you think you get a bum rap in the media on the economy?" and "Do you ever get mad at your fellow Republicans?" As Media Matters for America noted at the time, Media Research Center president L. Brent Bozell III defended Cavuto from criticism that he had lobbed "softball" questions to Bush, asserting that Bush was asked "some challenging questions" and that the interview "was no puff job."

* Similarly, Cavuto's July 31, 2006, exclusive interview with Bush also featured softballs, false assertions, and a failure on Cavuto's part to ask any substantive questions regarding the Iraq war, as Media Matters documented. In addition, Cavuto rarely challenged Bush's answers, including Bush's claim that "I think about Al Qaeda every day" -- even though he previously asserted that he was "not that concerned" about Osama bin Laden. After the interview, Cavuto repeatedly praised the president and his ability to withstand the Miami humidity, telling Fox News' Brian Wilson that Bush "was dry as toast" and "looked great."

* On February 16, 2006, Cheney granted his first interview after accidentally shooting a hunting companion in the face to Fox News' Brit Hume. As Media Matters noted, in airing the interview, Fox News omitted Cheney's comments about drinking a beer the day he shot his hunting companion, Harry Whittington, and even excluded the comments from what it said was the "full interview" posted on its website. Yet, on the February 19 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday, Hume gave himself high marks for the manner in which he conducted his interview with Cheney, saying "[t]he last thing in the world that Dick Cheney needed on that day was a soft interview," and "my job was to simply sit there and walk through this episode with him and ask all the relevant questions." Moreover, Hume neglected to ask a number of "relevant" questions, as Media Matters noted. For example, Cheney appeared to accept responsibility for shooting Whittington ("Well, ultimately, I'm the guy who pulled the trigger"), but Hume failed to ask Cheney why he allowed surrogates -- without challenging or correcting them -- to publicly blame Whittington for the accident.
* On September 30, 2006, Fox aired a special on then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, titled "Why He Fights," which promised to "examine why President Bush stands behind him and what drives the 73-year-old Rumsfeld to soldier on." In a "Reporter's Notebook" entry on the documentary, Bret Baier, who interviewed Rumsfeld, wrote: "[F]or me, Rumsfeld continues to be one of the most fascinating figures in President Bush's war cabinet." He continued, "At 74 years old, he is a self-made millionaire many times over. He once served as the nation's youngest defense secretary -- now he's the oldest. So what keeps him going? What makes him continue to fight?" Baier further described the special as a "series of one-on-one interviews with Rumsfeld that took place over the course of several months," adding: "I traveled with Rumsfeld to Iraq numerous times, spoke with him at the Pentagon, and even rode along with him as he traveled to and from the White House."

*

On the October 16, 17, and 18, 2006, editions of The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly aired portions of his October 16 interview with Bush, which consisted of such "tough questions" as whether Hillary Clinton is "soft on terrorism," whether "the anti-Bush press" is responsible for popular opposition to the war, and whether Bush was aware that critics "are trying to destroy you." O'Reilly also asked Bush, "[Y]ou work hard, right?" In his introduction to the October 16 interview segment, O'Reilly stated that "[b]ecause every presidential interview is finite," he would concentrate on "what is happening now." Absent from the interview, O'Reilly stated, would be any questions that "look back," because, "What good does it do to rehash WMDs?" According to the on-screen text, "Looking back doesn't do anybody any good."

*

On October 13, 2007, Fox News aired "Dick Cheney: No Retreat," which was described as "an exclusive interview" with Cheney and teased as "a rare glimpse into the life of the vice president."

* On February 2 and February 3, 2008, Fox News aired a documentary titled "George W. Bush: Fighting to the Finish," after, as Fox itself described, "FOX News' Bret Baier was granted unprecedented access by George W. Bush as the president begins the final year of his extraordinarily consequential tenure."

Media Matters has also noted that Fox News hosted events from Bush and Cheney's post-2008 election "legacy tour" where Fox News interviewers utterly failed to push back against statements that were highly disputable, or echoed those statements themselves:

* In a December 17, 2008, interview with Bush that aired on Special Report, host Bret Baier asked Bush, "Do you believe that there hasn't been a terrorist attack on U.S. soil in more than seven years because of the policies your administration has implemented?" The question tracked a talking point reportedly contained in a "two-page memo" that the Los Angeles Times reported "presents the Bush record as an unalloyed success" and "mentions none of the episodes that detractors say have marred his presidency."

* In an interview that aired on the December 22, 2008, edition of Fox News Sunday, Cheney told host Chris Wallace that "the actions that we took, based on the president's decisions and based on some outstanding work by the intelligence community and by the military, has produced a safe seven and a half years. I think the record speaks for itself." Wallace did not note that a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report released on April 17, 2008 -- titled "The United States Lacks Comprehensive Plan to Destroy the Terrorist Threat and Close the Safe Haven in Pakistan's Federally Administered Tribal Areas" -- found that "[t]he United States has not met its national security goals to destroy terrorist threats and close the safe haven in Pakistan's FATA [Federally Administered Tribal Areas]." Nor did Wallace note that investigative journalist Ron Suskind has reported that many CIA analysts believe Al Qaeda leaders have declined to attack the United States again for strategic reasons, not due to the Bush administration's counterterrorism policies. Further, the degree to which several terrorist attacks the Bush administration supposedly thwarted were credible threats has been disputed. In the interview, Cheney also claimed that the tax cuts were "how we recovered from the aftermath of the 9-11 attacks," and Wallace did not point out that lost revenue through tax cuts has been the greatest single contributor to the deficit during the Bush administration, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP).
* During an interview that aired on the January 11 edition of Special Report, Brit Hume asked Bush, "[H]ow badly would it hurt, in your view, if these enhanced interrogation techniques -- that some call torture -- were abandoned and were not used?" Bush replied in part: "Everything this administration did was -- had a -- you know -- a legal basis to it, otherwise we would not have done it." Hume did not note that the interrogation opinions issued by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) from August 2002 and March 2003 were subsequently withdrawn by Jack Goldsmith, who served as the head of OLC from 2003 to 2004. Indeed, Goldsmith wrote in his book, The Terror Presidency: Law and Judgment Inside the Bush Administration (W.W. Norton & Co., June 2007) that "OLC's analysis of the law of torture in the August 1, 2002, opinion and the March 2003 opinion was legally flawed, tendentious in substance and tone, and overbroad and thus largely unnecessary" [Page 151].
* During a January 12 radio interview with Cheney, Hannity said of Bush: "And I'm frustrated as somebody who is a big supporter of his that he does not get the credit that I think he deserves in keeping this country safe -- and you're a big part of this as well -- after 9-11 and the worst attack on America soil." Hannity then asked Cheney: "Does that frustrate you like it does me at all?" Cheney replied, "Oh, to some extent. But if you've been around as long as I have in this line of work, you recognize that you rarely get credit for things that don't happen." Later in the interview, Hannity said to Cheney: "Mr. Vice President, you kept this country safe, along with the president, for all the years and the days after 9-11. For that we owe you a great debt of gratitude. I know you woke up every morning and that was your number one priority."
* During his January 12 interview with Fox News White House correspondent Mike Emanuel, Cheney said: "I think probably the most important thing we did was to keep the country safe for the last seven and a half years; to disrupt, interrupt, break up all the prospective attacks and plots that were developed to come launch another mass casualty attack inside the United States. That's been a remarkable achievement. It wasn't an accident, it didn't just happen."

From the June 17 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom:

HEMMER: ABC News now facing a bit of criticism for an upcoming prime-time special on the president's health care plan. What's raising eyebrows isn't what they plan to cover but where they're doing it and how that could affect their coverage. The special, set inside the White House, will include an interview with the president and the first lady and a question-and-answer session in prime time with citizens that will be handpicked by ABC News. What it will not include is any input from Republicans or health care critics. Seton Motley with the Media Research Center is on this this morning. Good morning to you. You say this is basically a home game for the White House. Explain that.

MOTLEY: Well -- and it's not just the prime time; they're broadcasting from the White House all day. Good Morning America, the prime-time special, and Nightline after the prime-time special. So this is an all-day home field advantage play for Obama and his position on health care.

From the June 16 edition of Fox News' Hannity:

HANNITY: Here we've got Brian Williams bowing before the president, you know, and I guess he was sort of doing his imitation of when he met the Saudi king, and now we've got -- now we've got an infomercial by ABC. They're going to literally go to the White House, they're going to do all their shows from there. And they're not going to let the Republicans --

NICOLLE WALLACE (former White House communications director): Well, here -- you know, the night that the Brian Williams special aired, a Democrat emailed me and said tonight is the night that journalism died.

HANNITY: Now, wait a minute. I got -- I'm taking that line back. I said throughout the campaign journalism in America is dead, and I really stand by that today. I don't think the American people -- we have this big health care reform debate going on. The American people aren't getting informed about the cost, about the intricacies of the policy, right?

[...]

HANNITY: Could you imagine any conservative -- pick any conservative that you want, even you or your husband, or me or Rush or [Mark] Levin, anybody, and that we made a similar comment, "slutty flight attendant look," and let's say we're talking about Hillary or Michelle Obama, or pick any female Democratic politician. What would the reaction to be?

THOMPSON: Would never happen, could never happen, would never happen. But this is a world where ABC is going to be broadcasting from within the White House. Sort of like in Russia, you know, back in the days of the Politburo and the czars where the press, you know, lives in-house.

They have their own in-house press now so -- the double standard is to apparent that it's almost not worth talking about anymore. But we are winning in this, and this is why it's so exciting. The lesson we can take from this, Sean, is that if we fight, if we protest, we can actually do something here, and you have been such a proponent of it, you know, and a defender of Sarah's and a defender of mine.

[...]

HANNITY: Plus, ABC News has decided to throw journalistic integrity out the window and let the White House take over one of its prime-time broadcasts next week -- an infomercial.

[...]

HANNITY: But in all seriousness, we have a problem with the media. We've got an anchor -- we got an entire NBC establishment in the tank for him, The New York Times in the tank for him. Now, Charlie Gibson, Good Morning America, Nightline, they're all going to do the show from the White House, they're going to do a town hall. Republicans have asked for time to be a part of this show. The president says he likes, you know, vigorous debate. Why are Republicans going to be shut out of this?

[JasperST]

Pat, you live in an alternative universe. There is no way that FOX treated Bush like mass media is treating Obama.

[BigPat]

Big Pat...

I'm not even going to bother with your post - I give you proof and either you can read or you are so far into your denial that it just doesn't register with you.

You have put forth no evidence other than a cut and paste from a WorldNetDaily article. You simply keep repeating unreferenced claims that are not true, such as the claim that money has been Earmarked fro ACORN.

I see that you're a Border Patrol Agent, and I see how that may have had an effect on you. Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean should never have been charged and Bush was weak for just communing their sentences rather than giving them a full pardon. Sutton was wrong. He resigned in April of this year. He should have been let go looong before that. Gonzales appointed him - but Bush is also somewhat culpable for Sutton.

Bush, Johnny Sutton, and Alberto Gonzales all threw those guys under teh bus and their behavior was inexcusable. However, this has absolutely nothing to do with the current discussion.

As far as any further conversation with you goes... I don't have the time or patience to deal with someone like you.

Obviously not, you can't seem to handle it when people challenge your unsupported and often untrue claims.

If you're happy with the way you choose to believe - then go for it. Personally I am not happy when there is no accountability, no integrity and no honesty in our government. And people who will continue to elect and representation/leadership that lacks character are as much to blame as those in power.

The way to fight dishonesty in government is not to simply make up another set of lies to try and discredit the people in power.

How often are you in contact with your own Senator or Representative? You'll find out more by doing to work and research yourself than by watching TV. Really.

I have written my legislators on several issues, It is a waste of time, the only response is a form letter. Many times the form letter does not even address the issue you wrote about. I work during the evening news, I do not get my news from television. You also didn't answer the question posed earlier. What type of work do you do that gives you such great Woodward & Bernstein style insider information about what goes on in Washington? Are you a journalist? Lobbyist?

[OnceBitten]

You have put forth no evidence other than a cut and paste from a WorldNetDaily article. You simply keep repeating unreferenced claims that are not true, such as the claim that money has been Earmarked fro ACORN.



Bush, Johnny Sutton, and Alberto Gonzales all threw those guys under teh bus and their behavior was inexcusable. However, this has absolutely nothing to do with the current discussion.



Obviously not, you can't seem to handle it when people challenge your unsupported and often untrue claims.



The way to fight dishonesty in government is not to simply make up another set of lies to try and discredit the people in power.



I have written my legislators on several issues, It is a waste of time, the only response is a form letter. Many times the form letter does not even address the issue you wrote about. I work during the evening news, I do not get my news from television. You also didn't answer the question posed earlier. What type of work do you do that gives you such great Woodward & Bernstein style insider information about what goes on in Washington? Are you a journalist? Lobbyist?

You are beyond impossible!

Look at the record! Look at the statements made by Steve King. On camera. They are available. It specifically addresses the ACORN issue. Apparently the parental controls on your computer prevent you from viewing material that is beyond your grasp.

You're a Border Patrol Agent, I think you have issues due to the unfortunate and unfair treatment of your fellow agents. Call it a hunch, but you have an axe to grind and you're taking it out on anything you associate with conservatives. Your problem - not mine.

It's absolutely none of your business what I do for a living. I have told you as much as you are entitled to know - actually more than you are entitled to know. The day you pay my mortgage, taxes, insurance and other bills will be the day you are entitled to know anything more about me.

The links I have posted regarding the FD are available on other news sites too. She gave the interview and that's what she said. Out of HER MOUTH. The other examples - and there are more... are NOT from that particular news outlet - so that blows your theory.

I will not put up with your attitude and your accusations. I have provided factual information for everything I have stated. You regurgitate garbage from Huffington Post blogs... That just doesn't cut it for me.

[LS1Blue]

You are beyond impossible!

Look at the record! Look at the statements made by Steve King. On camera. They are available. It specifically addresses the ACORN issue. Apparently the parental controls on your computer prevent you from viewing material that is beyond your grasp.

You're a Border Patrol Agent, I think you have issues due to the unfortunate and unfair treatment of your fellow agents. Call it a hunch, but you have an axe to grind and you're taking it out on anything you associate with conservatives. Your problem - not mine.

It's absolutely none of your business what I do for a living. I have told you as much as you are entitled to know - actually more than you are entitled to know. The day you pay my mortgage, taxes, insurance and other bills will be the day you are entitled to know anything more about me.

The links I have posted regarding the FD are available on other news sites too. She gave the interview and that's what she said. Out of HER MOUTH. The other examples - and there are more... are NOT from that particular news outlet - so that blows your theory.

I will not put up with your attitude and your accusations. I have provided factual information for everything I have stated. You regurgitate garbage from Huffington Post blogs... That just doesn't cut it for me.

Another example of "be like me or else we can't talk" GOP mindset.

[JasperST]

Another example of "be like me or else we can't talk" GOP mindset.

That's an odd interpretation. Did you read the conversation?

[BigPat]

You are beyond impossible!

Look at the record! Look at the statements made by Steve King. On camera. They are available. It specifically addresses the ACORN issue. Apparently the parental controls on your computer prevent you from viewing material that is beyond your grasp.

The problem is that Steve King is full of crap and he is doing nothing but political grandstanding. There is no Federal earmark for ACORN as you are claiming . It does not exist. This is a trumped up issue. Back to the original topic, it certainly doesn't deserve media coverage as it is a fake issue that he is simply using to do some mugging for the camera. As to the Pelosi allegations, I would like to see Pelosi get embarrassed, but a 2 million dollar investigation into false statements that weren't made under oath is simply a waste. I also do not understand your logic. I keep pointing out to you that there is no actual earmark for ACORN, and your response is essentially that I am an idiot because I don't simply take Rep. King's statements at face value. By that logic then, if Nancy Pelosi or Barney Frank say something on camera in front of the House then it must be the gospel truth, right?

BTW, below is the link to the actual bill that Rep. King was trying to add teh amendments to. As I have continually pointed out, there is no earmark for ACORN in that bill.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h2847eh.txt.pdf

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:h.r.02847:

It's absolutely none of your business what I do for a living. I have told you as much as you are entitled to know - actually more than you are entitled to know. The day you pay my mortgage, taxes, insurance and other bills will be the day you are entitled to know anything more about me.

You are the one that put it out there more than once that you have inside connections in both Lansing and Washington, D.C. You said this: "I don't parrot misinformation - I get my info from DC and from Lansing. That's part of my job. It's what I get paid to do.". It is a perfectly reasonable question to ask what it is that you do that gives you such great insider information on what goes on in D.C.. Judging by your answer, I think that it is a safe assumption that you are full of crap.

The links I have posted regarding the FD are available on other news sites too. She gave the interview and that's what she said. Out of HER MOUTH. The other examples - and there are more... are NOT from that particular news outlet - so that blows your theory.

Who cares what one legislator says? I never said that nobody had ever favored the fairness doctrine. What I said is that there is no current effort to bring it back and it is not going to come back. The person who would have the power to reinstate it (the FCC commissioner) has explicitly stated that he will not reinstate it. The fairness doctrine is a fake issue for certain right wing blowhards to energize their supporters.

I will not put up with your attitude and your accusations. I have provided factual information for everything I have stated. You regurgitate garbage from Huffington Post blogs... That just doesn't cut it for me.

You say I have regurgitated stuff from the huffington post, yet I have not once cited them. The only source you have cited is worldnetdaily, which is actually far worse than the Huffington Post (at least the Huffington posts admits to being a collection of opinion pieces, WND claim to be actual journalists ). For someone claiming to have all of the insider connections that you do, you sure don't put out very much factual information....

[OnceBitten]

The problem is that Steve King is full of crap and he is doing nothing but political grandstanding. There is no Federal earmark for ACORN as you are claiming . It does not exist. This is a trumped up issue. Back to the original topic, it certainly doesn't deserve media coverage as it is a fake issue that he is simply using to do some mugging for the camera. As to the Pelosi allegations, I would like to see Pelosi get embarrassed, but a 2 million dollar investigation into false statements that weren't made under oath is simply a waste. I also do not understand your logic. I keep pointing out to you that there is no actual earmark for ACORN, and your response is essentially that I am an idiot because I don't simply take Rep. King's statements at face value. By that logic then, if Nancy Pelosi or Barney Frank say something on camera in front of the House then it must be the gospel truth, right?

BTW, below is the link to the actual bill that Rep. King was trying to add teh amendments to. As I have continually pointed out, there is no earmark for ACORN in that bill.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h2847eh.txt.pdf

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:h.r.02847:

You are the one that put it out there more than once that you have inside connections in both Lansing and Washington, D.C. You said this: "I don't parrot misinformation - I get my info from DC and from Lansing. That's part of my job. It's what I get paid to do.". It is a perfectly reasonable question to ask what it is that you do that gives you such great insider information on what goes on in D.C.. Judging by your answer, I think that it is a safe assumption that you are full of crap.



Who cares what one legislator says? I never said that nobody had ever favored the fairness doctrine. What I said is that there is no current effort to bring it back and it is not going to come back. The person who would have the power to reinstate it (the FCC commissioner) has explicitly stated that he will not reinstate it. The fairness doctrine is a fake issue for certain right wing blowhards to energize their supporters.





You say I have regurgitated stuff from the huffington post, yet I have not once cited them. The only source you have cited is worldnetdaily, which is actually far worse than the Huffington Post (at least the Huffington posts admits to being a collection of opinion pieces, WND claim to be actual journalists ). For someone claiming to have all of the insider connections that you do, you sure don't put out very much factual information....

Okay - one link equals ALL links.

A direct quote from a person is NOT an opinion of the news agency. So I suppose that whatever a liberal politician says is untrue if it is cited by a news agency that you don't like? The only thing they do say that can be quoted are things that you agree with?

Like I said - MORE than one politico has made statements about revisiting the FD. I'm not your research assistant, look it up yourself. Last time I will say it to you.



I never said I have 'connections' - I simply stated that my work involves knowing what is going on and that happens to mean I know enough people that I can verify information with. I deal with specific issues, but that doesn't mean other issues are not important to me, some issues do affect other issues indirectly even when they seem to be unrelated. And yes - my job involves KNOWING what's going on as it effects the people whom I work for. I do not lobby. Though I know many people who do, all lobbyists are not cut from the same cloth - there are some who actually care about what they are doing and they lobby for good cause and reform.

You have some real anger problems. I have noticed that you try to twist things to your own rather narrow perceptions - or the perceptions that you choose to place your beliefs in. That's YOUR problem, not mine. I have also noticed that you have decided to single me out as your target. That's a bit creepy. I have had the misfortune of dealing with people like you before - you're like the liberal version of the Jehova's Witness' - I'm sorry, but I have my own religion... In your case; I'm sorry, but I have my own political ideology - I'm not interested in buying yours. And I am not trying to 'sell' mine to you. You don't have to accept my beliefs, but don't expect me to agree with yours when I know your 'facts' are misinformed and/or wrong. You can go on and believe them - just quit trying to jam them down my throat. That make work with weak minded sheeple, but not with me.

This will be the final time I respond to you on ANY topic. I don't waste my time with angry WRONG people like you. You obviously choose to believe only what you WANT to believe and any person - EVEN a legislator who is INVOLVED and knows MORE than you is supposedly wrong in your mind. That's rich. If God Himself told you you were wrong - you'd probably argue with him...

[OnceBitten]

Another example of "be like me or else we can't talk" GOP mindset.

Afraid not. I don't like ANY politician who cares more about their own personal success and power more than they care about truly representing the voices of those who elected them.

As far as I am concerned there should be term limits. The salaries of our legislators should be determined by the people, not the legislators. While many are 'professionals' in one area or another - none are experts in all areas of business, law, medicine, etc. Yet we never question their decisions - or why they make the decisions they do.

If I had my way - we'd get rid of 80% of them and replace them with legislators that still believe they are morally obligated to the citizens of this country first and foremost.

We are curtailing our spending, we are responsible for our finances. Why should we not hold our government responsible too? I support candidates that I feel best represent MY values on different issues. That is not something that falls under any specific party. I would love to see a successful three party (or four party) system. We have two political entities that have become so powerful that they no longer represent the ideals of the American people - they represent the ideals of their party.

And - it is true, I cannot talk to people who do not understand common sense and refuse to be reasonable. If that makes me a typical GOP supporter, I guess that would make liberals the polar opposite.

[dadyswat]

You are beyond impossible!

Look at the record! Look at the statements made by Steve King. On camera. They are available. It specifically addresses the ACORN issue. Apparently the parental controls on your computer prevent you from viewing material that is beyond your grasp.

You're a Border Patrol Agent, I think you have issues due to the unfortunate and unfair treatment of your fellow agents. Call it a hunch, but you have an axe to grind and you're taking it out on anything you associate with conservatives. Your problem - not mine.

It's absolutely none of your business what I do for a living. I have told you as much as you are entitled to know - actually more than you are entitled to know. The day you pay my mortgage, taxes, insurance and other bills will be the day you are entitled to know anything more about me.

The links I have posted regarding the FD are available on other news sites too. She gave the interview and that's what she said. Out of HER MOUTH. The other examples - and there are more... are NOT from that particular news outlet - so that blows your theory.

I will not put up with your attitude and your accusations. I have provided factual information for everything I have stated. You regurgitate garbage from Huffington Post blogs... That just doesn't cut it for me.

Maybe he's like Chris Mathews and gets a thrill up his leg when Obama speaks.