Fox News racist or just hates Obama?

[chipmunk stew]

his troubling associations with people like Louis Farrahkahn

In what way is Obama associated with Farrakhan?

 

[DoubtingStephen]

In what way is Obama associated with Farrakhan?

I heard they were both American citizens.

 

[Gene L]

No, it isn't. It's plain English.

Shouldn't that be "babies'", BTW?

Not sure I understand this statement. It's a possessive, and babies' is a plural possessive.

"My baby's mama" is singular, "The babies' mama" is plural possessive. Or is there something I'm missing? It's late.

The link to Farrakhan and Obama is they both were recoginized as outstanding African American men by the same church, where Obama's (Christian, not Muslum) minister praised the Jew hating holy man (Farrakhan calls Jews 'Bloodsuckers'). It's MUCH worse than being on the board of Halbutron.

Obama distanced himself from Farrakhan I believe in March, which I think shows he knew the connection would be made. Is it a real problem for him? Apparently he thinks so. He addressed this in a speech before AIPAC last month. A very good speech, I might add, where he distanced himself further.

I don't think Obama is a Muslim, I think he's a Christian, if that matters to anyone. A Christian from a rather radical church. Personally, I think he's earnest, honest (for a politician from Chicago) and a gifted politician.

I also think he's "green" as a politician. He's been on the National scene for what, 3-4 years? Has he ever held a job? Has McCaine, for that matter? He seems ill at ease with blue-collar folks, and the charges of elitism fit, IMO. He's been around a sort of radical chic group most of his adult life.

He's not of ordinary cloth and is awful when he tries to be. Much is made of the fact that he grew up in a single-parent home. Well, so did I, and my mother didn't have a PhD. She had a third grade education and was a cleaning woman. His mother, a Ph D (I say again) was on food stamps! FOOD STAMPS! A Ph D on FOOD STAMPS! Jesus. We were never on food stamps, and my mother scrubbed floors, so pardon me if I don't shed a tear. According to MSNBC, he paied off his college loans LAST YEAR. Making maybe 100K a year, and he just paid them off last year? God bless America.

He's calling for change, but he's basically like HRC (who has been in politics longer, and probably sinned more) and McCain, who is so old he doesn't have to try to act like "one of us."

Everyone can experience a moment they wish they could call back, and time has a way of forgiving folks of that. He hasn't had time to outgrow his mis-steps. He certainly hasn't made any lately.

Fox news should go after him AND McCaine, vigorously. The campaign is a job interview, and each candidate should be asked what an employer (we) would ask of a person seeking the job.

Obama has not tried to get my vote. Hillary did, but she was such a fraud, anyone could see thru the transparancy. McCaine has not, but he has an earnestness that is paid for (IMO) while Obama is a hope for what may be. But DAMN, the MAN HAS 3 YEARS IH PUBLIC OFFICE!

Obama shouldn't worry about Fox dropping a dime on him. If he said something or his wife said something untoward, it is what it is. Proof either exists, or it doesn't, and if it doesn't, Fox or anyone else who claims to have a smoking document is going to look very, very bad. Obama kind of fed the rumor mill by establishing that website to dispell and discount rumors, an extraordiary thing to do. Unfounded rumors, such as the ones currently making the scene, are NOT going to hurt Obama. They exercize posters on this board and in the left-wing blogs, who would do better to shut up about them and let them die a natural death, but they keep feeding the corpse in a reverse sort of way. Strong denials are a good food subsitute and have the opposite effect of what they're looking for.

Barak Obama knows whether there is a skeleton in his closet. If there isn't one, he's going to get a boost from those who imply there is. But if there is a glaring problem...hmmm...let's look at possibilities.

Were I he, I'd worry most about HRC exposing the skeleton just before the Convention to steal the nomination. I don't doubt for a minute that if she has something, she'll use it. If she doesn't maybe she'll shut up.

She's set herself up to be the Broker of the Woman's Vote.

 

[gdnp]

But DAMN, the MAN HAS 3 YEARS IH PUBLIC OFFICE!

Questions:

1) Is the Illinois state senate not public, or not an office? Or does the 7 years he served there not count for some other reason?
2) Were you aware that president Lincoln had only served one term in the US house (1847-1849) before his election as president in 1860?
3) How many years of public office did Eisenhower have before his election?

 

[Dr Adequate]

Not sure I understand this statement. It's a possessive, and babies' is a plural possessive.

"My baby's mama" is singular, "The babies' mama" is plural possessive. Or is there something I'm missing? It's late.

The plural would be correct, this is what you're missing. Unless Michelle was suggesting that Barack was not the father of one of their children.

The link to Farrakhan and Obama is they both were recoginized as outstanding African American men by the same church, where Obama's (Christian, not Muslum) minister praised the Jew hating holy man (Farrakhan calls Jews 'Bloodsuckers'). It's MUCH worse than being on the board of Halbutron.

But DAMN, the MAN HAS 3 YEARS IH PUBLIC OFFICE!

Not true.

---

I see that you haven't even tried to substantiate your other claims, preferring to move on to another more nebulous set of assertions.

 

[Gene L]

Fair questions: 1. No, I don't think the Illinois senate deals with defense, foreign policy, national economic issues, maintains a Navy, anArmy or an Air Force. They may have an equivlent of the FBI, but not of CIA, Customs, Treasury, and dozens of others. What laws the Illinois senate passes directly affects only Illinois citizens, thru the Illinois Supreme Court. My point is The Illinois Congress is not a microcasm of the United States Congres.

2. Yes, I was aware of Lincoln's history, a great Republican.. Difference between Obama and Lincoln is the difference between Now and Then. Obama, thanks to media and his speech at the last Dem National Convention was know as a freshman from Illinois all over the US. Lincoln wasn't known by hardly anyone. The war gave him the challenge and defined his presidency, maybe not the SINGLE challenge he rose to, but certainly it pales the others.

He was a mission president. It would have been interesting to see how he'd done had there not been a war. Now there was a blue-collar man. He used to try out new Army rifles near the White House. He set free all slaves, which a lot of leaders had wanted to before, but Lincoln alone had the opportunity.

3. Eisenhower had experience in a way that a candidate would love to have. He ran WW II from the front, moving millions of men for a single purpose, and as the leader of the Armies of the Allies, did more politics in his years in England than any president would do at home. He worked with foreign governments more than any president, including at a different level, FDR. His Public Office was real, and he was the Officer in Charge. The only thing he didn't do was to face the public to keep his job.

God knows there's plenty of politics in the military, and when you'redealing with military of other countries, there's both politics and protocol.

So, of the three you named, which one do you think matches him most closely. Were I making comparisons between him and other presidents, my choice would be Jimmy Carter.

 

[gdnp]

In my mind Obama's major weakness is his lack of executive experience. Eisenhower had no legislative experience, but the presidency is an executive post, and running WWII is somewhat akin to an executive job: lots of work to delegate to others, but the buck stops with you.

Carter was a governor. Smart man like Obama, and idealistic. The main difference is that Carter could make a speech calling something the moral equivalent of war and put you to sleep. He was one of the least inspiring speakers I have ever heard. Love him or hate him, Obama can give an inspiring speech.

I see him closer to Kennedy. Or a left win Reagan with brains and without Alzheimer's.

 

[Gene L]

You seem to confusing a lot of issues here. I suggest sticking to one topic, Obama and Fox news.


Sure, you can debate that hate is too strong a word. That's fine. I accept and recognize the criticism. Yet, I noticed you keep avoiding the main point, What is the reason for so many overt gaffes directed towards Obama? A news agency isn't supposed to manufacture the news, are they? It seems that Fox News has an anti-Obama agenda and that this agenda has resulted in racist comments and insinuations of Obama being a terrorist. Perhaps you'd like to justify these behaviors?

OK...first, what is the main point? If it is something like "Is Fox News racist, or do they hate Obama?" Right. I answered that fully, but will do so again.

Fox isn't racist, and they don't like Obamb. No hate. Someone talked about hating tortures and pedophiles, and still hate is not the correct word. YOu hate the idea of torturers, and the idea of pedophiles, but if you're 21, you've almost certainly had a conversation with one. So, you hate what they do, but not hate them. I've busted my share of short-eyes, and what I feel is disgust, not hatred.

The Fox news has an agenda, I'd hope so or it would be like one of those Community Access channels. YES. They have an agenda. So does MSNBC. Has Fox made some false statements, yes. Why? Dumb talking heads. They apoligized, recognized their stupidity.

As an aside, soon after Tim Russert died, a breathless woman on CNN thinking she had the scoop said "Mr. Russert didn't die from a hear attack, he died from cardiac arrest. And that's different, it's not like a clot, it's when the electrical impulses stop."

Of course, that's a heart attack. Readers of news are many times dumb.

You said: Yet, I noticed you keep avoiding the main point, What is the reason for so many overt gaffes directed towards Obama? HEre I have a problem understanding. Do you mean that Obama makes gaffes and Fox points them out, or do you mean Fox makes the gaffes when pointing out what may be damaging to Obama? Not clear, but I'll try: it's their job.

News shouldn't make up News but they do, over and over. Remember Tailwind, the scandal cost ABC news their credibility. They made up a story about spraying poison gas on a Viet Namese village. Didn't happen. Sen. Kerry from Nebraska (former at the time the story broke) was supposed to have taken part, but didn't. Then there was the Letters from Bush scam that cost Dan Rather his job and his credibility.

I'm a skeptic of the news. I'm more comfortable with Olberman and ORielly because they're not really news men...they're opinon guys. Believe either at your own risk.

 

[Texas]

I see him closer to Kennedy. Or a left win Reagan with brains and without Alzheimer's.

Well Kennedy is more myth than fact and after Obama is elected twice by landslides then you can posibly make the case for Reagan but I think the Alzheimer's crack was unnecessary.

 

[gdnp]

Well Kennedy is more myth than fact and after Obama is elected twice by landslides then you can posibly make the case for Reagan but I think the Alzheimer's crack was unnecessary.

I was comparing the oratorical skill of the two. I have no doubt that, should be be elected, Obama's legacy will be far different than Reagan's

I have no doubt that Obama is considerably more intelligent than Reagan was. As for the Alzheimer's "crack", I wasn't trying to be funny. I felt at the time, certainly during his second term, that Reagan was showing signs of early Alzheimer's or senile dementia. I was about as surprised when they announced it officially as I was when then reported John Paul II had Parkinson's. It had been evident for years.

 

[Texas]

I was comparing the oratorical skill of the two. I have no doubt that, should be be elected, Obama's legacy will be far different than Reagan's

I have no doubt that Obama is considerably more intelligent than Reagan was. As for the Alzheimer's "crack", I wasn't trying to be funny. I felt at the time, certainly during his second term, that Reagan was showing signs of early Alzheimer's or senile dementia. I was about as surprised when they announced it officially as I was when then reported John Paul II had Parkinson's. It had been evident for years.

What has Obama said that is so intelligent? His vaunted intelligence has caused him to have to throw half of his life long associates under the bus for the stupid things they have done. I have watched every debate he has been in and he is probably the worst since Gerald Ford. He is great with his stump speech which, BTW, hasn't changed since he started but get him off the teleprompter and he stutters like porky pig.

 

[gdnp]

What has Obama said that is so intelligent? His vaunted intelligence has caused him to have to throw half of his life long associates under the bus for the stupid things they have done.

Sorry, Columbia University and Harvard Law school are tough to get into, even with affirmative action. And affirmative action does not make you editor of the Harvard Law review.

I have watched every debate he has been in and he is probably the worst since Gerald Ford. He is great with his stump speech which, BTW, hasn't changed since he started but get him off the teleprompter and he stutters like porky pig.

This makes him different from Reagan in what way? "I just signed a bill that will outlaw Russia for ever. The bombing starts in 5 minutes" Ronald Reagan? He had one disastrous performance against Mondale, when he actually tried to answer questions. From that point on he studied his lines, and used the questions as queues to deliver pre-written dialog. Reagan held few press conferences: he was good at delivering lines, but I never felt that he had much of a grasp of anything but broad policy.

Obama's stump speech not varying is called staying "on message". He has given other excellent speeches as well, however. I think his original speech explaining his relationship to Wright was superb, as was his speech claiming victory in the Democratic race. Much better than Hilliary's non-concession.

 

[Dr Adequate]

What has Obama said that is so intelligent?

Try reading his speeches.

His vaunted intelligence has caused him to have to throw half of his life long associates under the bus for the stupid things they have done.

What an odd lie.

 

[Gene L]

Try listening to his debates. Heck, anyone who has a speech writer can write a speech. To associate a good speech with intelect is foolish.

Howsome ever, I think Obama is very intelligent. So was that dud, Jimmy Carter.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Try listening to his debates. Heck, anyone who has a speech writer can write a speech. To associate a good speech with intelect is foolish.

You asked, I believe, what he had said.

Howsome ever, I think Obama is very intelligent. So was that dud, Jimmy Carter.

Undeniable statistical proof that intelligent people suck.

 

[T.A.M.]

The link to Farrakhan and Obama is they both were recoginized as outstanding African American men by the same church, where Obama's (Christian, not Muslum) minister praised the Jew hating holy man (Farrakhan calls Jews 'Bloodsuckers'). It's MUCH worse than being on the board of Halbutron.

So is Obama now to be guilty of someone liking him and someone else who is less desirable by the public at large? How should he pay for this "Guilt by associated like"?

What is worse depends on your opinion, thanks for yours.

I don't think Obama is a Muslim, I think he's a Christian, if that matters to anyone. A Christian from a rather radical church. Personally, I think he's earnest, honest (for a politician from Chicago) and a gifted politician.

Good. So then you think both him and McCain are Earnest (you made a point of making the same comment about McCain below, almost in a way of distinguishing him from Obama).

I also think he's "green" as a politician. He's been on the National scene for what, 3-4 years? Has he ever held a job? Has McCaine, for that matter? He seems ill at ease with blue-collar folks, and the charges of elitism fit, IMO. He's been around a sort of radical chic group most of his adult life.

Has he ever held a job?? how do mean? Like working ad McDonalds or something, or digging ditches? Do either of them have to be a blue collar worker in order to run the USA?

He's not of ordinary cloth and is awful when he tries to be. Much is made of the fact that he grew up in a single-parent home. Well, so did I, and my mother didn't have a PhD. She had a third grade education and was a cleaning woman. His mother, a Ph D (I say again) was on food stamps! FOOD STAMPS! A Ph D on FOOD STAMPS! Jesus. We were never on food stamps, and my mother scrubbed floors, so pardon me if I don't shed a tear.

He didn't ask you or anyone to "Shed a tear" but rather it is done to counter any idea that he comes from some "silver spoon" background. Your annoyance with his background are noted.

According to MSNBC, he paied off his college loans LAST YEAR. Making maybe 100K a year, and he just paid them off last year? God bless America.

He's calling for change, but he's basically like HRC (who has been in politics longer, and probably sinned more) and McCain, who is so old he doesn't have to try to act like "one of us."

are you going to leave such a statement without example or proof. Pretty weak statement if you leave it at that.

Everyone can experience a moment they wish they could call back, and time has a way of forgiving folks of that. He hasn't had time to outgrow his mis-steps. He certainly hasn't made any lately.

BS. He was a state senator for years before his Federal post. He has had plenty of time. You don't have to be in your 60's or 70's to be the leader of a country.

Fox news should go after him AND McCaine, vigorously. The campaign is a job interview, and each candidate should be asked what an employer (we) would ask of a person seeking the job.

Not gonna happen at Fixed Noise.

Obama has not tried to get my vote. Hillary did, but she was such a fraud, anyone could see thru the transparancy. McCaine has not, but he has an earnestness that is paid for (IMO) while Obama is a hope for what may be. But DAMN, the MAN HAS 3 YEARS IH PUBLIC OFFICE!

Like I said earlier, you said you find Obama earnest. He has 3 years in Federal office.

Obama shouldn't worry about Fox dropping a dime on him. If he said something or his wife said something untoward, it is what it is. Proof either exists, or it doesn't, and if it doesn't, Fox or anyone else who claims to have a smoking document is going to look very, very bad. Obama kind of fed the rumor mill by establishing that website to dispell and discount rumors, an extraordiary thing to do. Unfounded rumors, such as the ones currently making the scene, are NOT going to hurt Obama. They exercize posters on this board and in the left-wing blogs, who would do better to shut up about them and let them die a natural death, but they keep feeding the corpse in a reverse sort of way. Strong denials are a good food subsitute and have the opposite effect of what they're looking for.

I hope you are right, i fear you are wrong.

Barak Obama knows whether there is a skeleton in his closet. If there isn't one, he's going to get a boost from those who imply there is. But if there is a glaring problem...hmmm...let's look at possibilities.

Were I he, I'd worry most about HRC exposing the skeleton just before the Convention to steal the nomination. I don't doubt for a minute that if she has something, she'll use it. If she doesn't maybe she'll shut up.

She's set herself up to be the Broker of the Woman's Vote.

I think if there were another "Rev Wright" sized story, they would have brought it out by now. To bring it out before the convention would do her more harm then good.

TAM

 

[varwoche]

Obama distanced himself from Farrakhan I believe in March

Long before then actually.

Fox news should go after him AND McCaine, vigorously. The campaign is a job interview, and each candidate should be asked what an employer (we) would ask of a person seeking the job.

Of course they should, as should every other news organization.

But should that include portraying Obama as an Islamanchurian candidate facts be damned? Or tying him to terrorists because of a fist bump? Answer: Of course not.

Which takes us back to the original point that I attempted to engage you on which you ignored: The examples given in this thread have nothing to do with vigorous journalism and everything to do with sleaze. And yet you defend the sleaze as if it has a relationship to journalism. Which is ridiculous.

 

[Suddenly]

According to MSNBC, he paied off his college loans LAST YEAR. Making maybe 100K a year, and he just paid them off last year? God bless America.

He didn't go to community college.

One can often get a good deal on student loans, and when the economy is going good one can make more investing money than by using same to wipe out debt. If I have a loan with a 4% APR and expect to make 8% in the market, paying off the debt ahead of schedule is not optimal money management.

 

[chipmunk stew]

The link to Farrakhan and Obama is they both were recoginized as outstanding African American men by the same church, where Obama's (Christian, not Muslum) minister praised the Jew hating holy man (Farrakhan calls Jews 'Bloodsuckers'). It's MUCH worse than being on the board of Halbutron.

So Obama is not associated with Farrakhan, then?

Just because you associate two people together in your mind doesn't mean that they are associates.

 

[joobz]

OK...first, what is the main point? If it is something like "Is Fox News racist, or do they hate Obama?" Right. I answered that fully, but will do so again.

Fox isn't racist, and they don't like Obamb. No hate. Someone talked about hating tortures and pedophiles, and still hate is not the correct word. YOu hate the idea of torturers, and the idea of pedophiles, but if you're 21, you've almost certainly had a conversation with one. So, you hate what they do, but not hate them. I've busted my share of short-eyes, and what I feel is disgust, not hatred.

OK. you agree that Fox news "doesn't like Obama." good. we are making progress.

The Fox news has an agenda, I'd hope so or it would be like one of those Community Access channels. YES. They have an agenda. So does MSNBC. Has Fox made some false statements, yes. Why? Dumb talking heads. They apoligized, recognized their stupidity.

Well, as a news agency, factual errors are not a "no big deal" issue. They've consistently attempted to portray Obama as a terrorist or possible terrorist ties. When called on it, they apologize. Does this strike you as an acceptable agenda for a news agency to promote?

As an aside, soon after Tim Russert died, a breathless woman on CNN thinking she had the scoop said "Mr. Russert didn't die from a hear attack, he died from cardiac arrest. And that's different, it's not like a clot, it's when the electrical impulses stop."

Of course, that's a heart attack. Readers of news are many times dumb.

I do not know fully your point here. Are you saying it is acceptable for Fox news to continue a factually inaccurate portrayal of Obama because another news caster confused heart attack and cariac arrest?

You said: Yet, I noticed you keep avoiding the main point, What is the reason for so many overt gaffes directed towards Obama? HEre I have a problem understanding. Do you mean that Obama makes gaffes and Fox points them out, or do you mean Fox makes the gaffes when pointing out what may be damaging to Obama? Not clear, but I'll try: it's their job.

No, I was calling the "terrorist fist jab" and "baby mama" gaffes. They were errors made by Fox news. I apologize if my use of the term made you think I was refering to the standard talking point of the errors that candidates make.

So I will ask again, Why does Fox news make so many repeatedly inflammatory statements directed towards Obama? These have no basis in fact and merely cater to the prejudicial fears of a certain demographic. Do you find this acceptable bias within a news organization?

News shouldn't make up News but they do, over and over. Remember Tailwind, the scandal cost ABC news their credibility. They made up a story about spraying poison gas on a Viet Namese village. Didn't happen. Sen. Kerry from Nebraska (former at the time the story broke) was supposed to have taken part, but didn't. Then there was the Letters from Bush scam that cost Dan Rather his job and his credibility.

I am not familiar with the tailwind scandal, so I cannot comment on it. As far as Dan Rather, the reaction was appropriate and he was punished appropriately. However, the only way we could compare the ABC and FOX News, is if ABC had on multiple shows made bald faced inflammatory accusations of Bush that were patently untrue.

I'm a skeptic of the news. I'm more comfortable with Olberman and ORielly because they're not really news men...they're opinon guys. Believe either at your own risk.

Everyone should be skeptical of the news. I do not think that point is in question. What is in question is if what Fox news does is considered acceptable bias.
Vigorous Journalism is demanded, but unsubstantiated prejudicial inflammatory accusations (direct or indirect) isn't vigorous journalism.