Obama declares war on Fox News

[PSGator66]

He has had the luxury with backing of the main stream media and labeling anyone who disagrees with him as a racist. He now is proactively going after the one source who actually questions his policies - Fox news! I hardly consider this healthy leadership but I am sure that the likes of Fredsandford, River and 108 think it is great that their messiah is working on having his cake and eating it too.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/...-organization/

[orangeblueorangeblue]

I thought you were joking, but he declared an actual war. The Navy is mobilizing outside of their office!

[wgbgator]

Good thing women are allowed in combat, now Megan Kelly can grab an M-16 and man (er woman?) the barricades.

[108]

wish people would just stop watching the political talking heads who first and foremost are in it to make money for themselves and their corporation

i just don't understand why people care so much about what they think....these people are no more human than you and I, except they are biased and clouded by $$$

obviously there are a few exceptions that primarily inform, but its far and few

end rant

[gatorpa]

Originally Posted by orangeblueorangeblue

I thought you were joking, but he declared an actual war. The Navy is mobilizing outside of their office!

Similar to the alleged mobilization of troops against Women by the Pubs?

[exiledgator]

Originally Posted by 108

wish people would just stop watching the political talking heads who first and foremost are in it to make money for themselves and their corporation

i just don't understand why people care so much about what they think....these people are no more human than you and I, except they are biased and clouded by $$$

obviously there are a few exceptions that primarily inform, but its far and few

end rant

I approve of this post.

I find that trying to form my own opinions is way more fun.

[rivergator]

Originally Posted by gatorpa

Similar to the alleged mobilization of troops against Women by the Pubs?

except one involves making laws and the other doesn't.

[MastaG8r]

Originally Posted by rivergator

except one involves making laws and the other doesn't.

The Republicans' so-called War on Women involves making laws? Which laws are those?

Or more to the point...on a scale of 1-10 with 10 being the most pathetic, just how pathetic does your president look for calling out a particular news network by name because they have the audacity to serve as a forum for opposition to his policies? I give him a perfect 10.

In a recent interview with The New Republic, President Obama was back to his grousing about the one television news outlet in America that won’t fall in line and treat him as emperor. Discussing breaking Washington's partisan gridlock, the president told TNR,"If a Republican member of Congress is not punished on Fox News...for working with a Democrat on a bill of common interest, then you’ll see more of them doing it."

Alas, the president loves to whine about the media meanies at Fox News. To him, these are not people trying to do their jobs. No, they are out to get him. What other motive could a journalist have in holding a president accountable? Why oh why do Ed Henry and Chris Wallace insist on asking hard questions? Make them stop!

The president seems more comfortable talking to "real journalists" such as Chris Hughes, who asked the question in the TNR [The New Republic] interview that elicited Obama's reflexive Fox hatred. Hughes is the new owner of TNR and is a former major Obama campaign donor and organizer who was featured on the cover of Fast Company, with the headline, "The Kid Who Made Obama President." You can't make this stuff up.

[rivergator]

One law:

Last week, she introduced a bill that, read literally, would make it a third-degree felony for women to terminate pregnancies resulting from rape — by classifying such abortions as “tampering with evidence.” Here’s the exact phrasing: “Tampering with evidence shall include procuring or facilitating an abortion, or compelling or coercing another to obtain abortion, of a fetus that is the result or criminal sexual penetration or incest with the intent to destroy evidence of the crime.”

link

[MastaG8r]

Originally Posted by rivergator

One law:



link

Oh okay. So the commanding general of the War on Women is...a woman? An obscure state legislator from New Mexico who introduced a bill proposing a bizarre law to prohibit aborting fetuses conceived from rape because they could be "evidence" against the rapist? That's the best you could come up with in your feeble effort to hijack this thread about 0bama's War on FOX News? I'll say this about your example - or rather, you'll say it:

Originally Posted by rivergator

single examples never prove anything.

[rivergator]

Originally Posted by MastaG8r

Oh okay. So the commanding general of the War on Women is...a woman? An obscure state legislator from New Mexico who introduced a bill proposing a bizarre law to prohibit aborting fetuses conceived from rape because they could be "evidence" against the rapist? That's the best you could come up with in your feeble effort to hijack this thread about 0bama's War on FOX News? I'll say this about your example - or rather, you'll say it:

you asked for an example of a law. you got one. or another

A proposed abortion bill introduced in Arkansas this week would ban all abortion services after a fetal heartbeat is detected — which can occur as early as six weeks, before some women even realize they’re pregnant — and charge doctors who perform abortions after that arbitrary cut-off with a Class D felony, punishable by up to six years in prison and up to a $10,000 fine.

link

and your attempt to use my 'single example' theory is absurdly flawed of course. See, if I were to claim that "most Republicans have declared war on women" and presented a single bill, that would be a valid argument. As with Dave's example of one opinion piece proving media bias.
But a single bill does certainly prove that such bills exist. And that was your question, now wasn't it?

personally, i think the term 'war on women' is a pretty big exaggeration.

[fredsanford]

I wish we had broadcast laws like Canada's where Fox News can't go because they admit that they lie in their so-called news programming.

[rivergator]

Originally Posted by fredsanford

I wish we had broadcast laws like Canada's where Fox News can't go because they admit that they lie in their so-called news programming.

nah

[MastaG8r]

Originally Posted by rivergator

you asked for an example of a law. you got one. or another



link

and your attempt to use my 'single example' theory is absurdly flawed of course. See, if I were to claim that "most Republicans have declared war on women" and presented a single bill, that would be a valid argument. As with Dave's example of one opinion piece proving media bias.
But a single bill does certainly prove that such bills exist. And that was your question, now wasn't it?

personally, i think the term 'war on women' is a pretty big exaggeration.

My request was for examples of laws that demonstrate the existence of a Republican War on Women. I asked: "The Republicans' so-called War on Women involves making laws? Which laws are those?"

So if you really did think "the term 'war on women' is a pretty big exaggeration," then right there would've been the time to say so. Instead you responded with what you (wrongly) thought was an example validating a term that you now say is "a pretty big exaggeration."

These bills introduced by state legislators do not serve to support your claim that 0bama's War on FOX News is different from the Republican War on Women because, "one involves making laws and the other doesn't." No, they are different because the former "war" does exist and the latter does not, or at best it is "a pretty big exaggeration." Right? Or do you now disagree with yourself?

[MastaG8r]

Originally Posted by fredsanford

I wish we had broadcast laws like Canada's where Fox News can't go because they admit that they lie in their so-called news programming.

Claim: The FOX News Channel has been banned in Canada.

[rivergator]

Originally Posted by MastaG8r

My request was for examples of laws that demonstrate the existence of a Republican War on Women. I asked: "The Republicans' so-called War on Women involves making laws? Which laws are those?"

So if you really did think "the term 'war on women' is a pretty big exaggeration," then right there would've been the time to say so. Instead you responded with what you (wrongly) thought was an example validating a term that you now say is "a pretty big exaggeration."

These bills introduced by state legislators do not serve to support your claim that 0bama's War on FOX News is different from the Republican War on Women because, "one involves making laws and the other doesn't." No, they are different because the former "war" does exist and the latter does not, or at best it is "a pretty big exaggeration." Right? Or do you now disagree with yourself?

As I said, I think the term 'war' is a big exaggeration. For both the Republicans and women and Obama/Fox. It's more than ridiculous that you think Obama saying "If a Republican member of Congress is not punished on Fox News or by Rush Limbaugh for working with a Democrat on a bill of common interest, then you’ll see more of them doing it" is somehow equal to war.
But what you asked for was examples of what's been called the war on women. And that's what you got.

[g8orbill]

the 47%ers prez is pathetic in his lack of leadership- and it is pathetic for him to attack an American Company because they do not like his views-I cannot say anymore without getting banned

[fredsanford]

Originally Posted by MastaG8r

My request was for examples of laws that demonstrate the existence of a Republican War on Women. I asked: "The Republicans' so-called War on Women involves making laws? Which laws are those?"

So if you really did think "the term 'war on women' is a pretty big exaggeration," then right there would've been the time to say so. Instead you responded with what you (wrongly) thought was an example validating a term that you now say is "a pretty big exaggeration."

These bills introduced by state legislators do not serve to support your claim that 0bama's War on FOX News is different from the Republican War on Women because, "one involves making laws and the other doesn't." No, they are different because the former "war" does exist and the latter does not, or at best it is "a pretty big exaggeration." Right? Or do you now disagree with yourself?

Quality goalpost moving.

How about the ongoing efforts in the HOR to pass laws differentiating "fun rape" from "rapey rape"?

[gatorpa]

Originally Posted by rivergator

you asked for an example of a law. you got one. or another



link

and your attempt to use my 'single example' theory is absurdly flawed of course. See, if I were to claim that "most Republicans have declared war on women" and presented a single bill, that would be a valid argument. As with Dave's example of one opinion piece proving media bias.
But a single bill does certainly prove that such bills exist. And that was your question, now wasn't it?

personally, i think the term 'war on women' is a pretty big exaggeration.

Funny your two examples of "Laws against Women" are actually for women, considering about what 52% of babies are female?

Amazing that it is thought of by some as a "War on Women" is actually an attempt to protecting a life that has few laws to protect it.

[JerseyGator01]

If I had a dime for every thread with the word "war" in the title that didn't involve war ...

Never underestimate the power of media brainwashing. War this, war that ...