Official Obama News Network
Printed From: Tippmann Paintball
Category: News And Views
Forum Name: Thoughts and Opinions
Forum Description: Got something you need to say?
URL: http://www.tippmannsports.com/forum/wwf77a/forum_posts.asp?TID=181563
Printed Date: 30 December 2025 at 8:52am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Official Obama News Network
Posted By: oldsoldier
Subject: Official Obama News Network
Date Posted: 05 May 2009 at 1:50pm
|
MSNBC has been ordained as the official White House News Network, and the aggitators of left wing "hate radio" are now officially condoned by the White House. Chris "Thrill Up My Leg" Matthews, Norah "The GOP Is Doomed to Die" O'Donnell and Ed "It's Time to Grind Them Into the Ground" Schultz, are free to speak, and lead the blind adoring Obama masses, but heaven forbid a conservative listens to Rush, Sean, or Andrew, for to do so means you are not thinking for yourself.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/05/white-house-msnbc.html - http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/05/white-house-msnbc.html Another unique differance showing the bias: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VAfJyzN3ak - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VAfJyzN3ak a video is worth a thousand words. Another view: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/05/for-political-comedians-the-jokes-not-on-obama/ - http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/05/for-political-comedians-the-jokes-not-on-obama/ ------------- 
|
Replies:
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 05 May 2009 at 2:13pm
|
I quit reading when I saw that you copied their "nicknames" from the LA Times.
------------- Que pasa? 
|
Posted By: Eville
Date Posted: 05 May 2009 at 2:31pm
| soooooo don't watch it. |
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 05 May 2009 at 2:52pm
|
Also, "The media will always show disrespect to NON-Liberals! By not standing the media is showing dissidence! It becomes subliminal dissidences when the media airs it causing the average viewing to subliminally veer toward the same dissidences." ------------- Que pasa?
|
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 05 May 2009 at 3:06pm
| Meh, most networks could kill a child on air before they passed fox in terms of being unreliable. I mean come on, they were breaking propaganda laws... |
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 05 May 2009 at 3:26pm
|
Please explain and reference the Fox as unrelieable comment, or is that just an opinion. I find ABC/NBC/CBS/MSNBC/CNN unrelieable also, and CBS (ie the Rather incident) leads the pack in news creation for an agenda. FOX is interesting having the best hourly rating and programing of any three of thier opponants combined.
This opinion of FOX is a created bias to justify many opinions other than the standard required agenda of the more left leaning. In todays internet mass media, any news event can have many biased reportings, now which one is the correct one depends on the viewers leanings. -------------
|
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 05 May 2009 at 3:30pm
|
Uh, OS, it's not an opinion if it's true. It was admitted:
http://crooksandliars.com/2008/07/25/mcclellan-white-house-gave-fox-commentators-talking-points/ - Fox received talking points from whitehouse Hugely illegal. That violates anti propaganda law OS. |
Posted By: Peter Parker
Date Posted: 05 May 2009 at 3:37pm
|
C'mon, OS. Seriously?
I little critical thinking here, instead of blindly following the conclusions you read on a BLOG? The conclusions this blogger draws from those video clips are beyond ridiculous. Seriously. And then you took at least one of those conclusions yet further into loonie land.
------------- "E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself". Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common? |
Posted By: Gatyr
Date Posted: 05 May 2009 at 4:10pm
|
Seriously you guys, it's in the name. Schultz? More like Schutz (Staffel is very obviously his suffix). No really, I lol at people who whine about the other side not thinking for themselves after their favorite pundit/network makes that statement. ------------- 
|
Posted By: scotchyscotch
Date Posted: 05 May 2009 at 4:27pm
|
Why do people get soo pissed about this kind of stuff? It's this kind of subtle inconsequential pish that keeps politicians from doing stuff that matters. And the press conference vid.. Honestly? |
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 05 May 2009 at 5:29pm
|
FYI- McClellan was discredited, his statements were for his book and publicity. Now the current morning converence call from the white house to the news media of the talking point of the day has been confirmed by Emanual himself.
The current misinformation campaign originating from the White House makes the Bush years almost amatuer hour. -------------
|
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 05 May 2009 at 5:34pm
| Hahahahaha OS you're so silly for believing what you do. |
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 05 May 2009 at 5:39pm
|
Same to you, youth is a terrible thing to waste, and that blog site, funny, we each can play counter blog, and no where in this mess is the truth. When you get older and more and more of your effort is confiscated to give to others, then you will understand. The new Obamanation is slowly pushing us this way. -------------
|
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 05 May 2009 at 5:48pm
|
I think what you mean to say is "once you get old you'll have your own conspiracy theories"
|
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 05 May 2009 at 6:01pm
|
Lets see , after JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Carter, and Clinton you learn how conspiracy theories work. This Obama is a classic in the making. I want to see one non-telepromptered speech where he can actually hold a thought, even if it is his own. Government Motors, Nationalizing Banking, setting pay restrictions (except for government workers and officials), and his idealog vision of the world in contrast to the reality of the world make this the true era of conspiracies.
Bay Of Pigs, Cuban Missile Crisis, Vietnam, Watergate, Iran Hostage Crisis, the list goes on, but you do tend to see patterns. -------------
|
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 05 May 2009 at 6:04pm
|
Here I'll simplify your opinion for you.
"He agrees with policies I don't like, so he's going to destroy the world." That saves you some effort. |
Posted By: Eville
Date Posted: 05 May 2009 at 6:32pm
| whats so bad about using a teleprompter? |
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 05 May 2009 at 6:33pm
|
Kinda like what you all said about Bush, he agrees with policies I do not like so he will destroy the world. Works both ways. -------------
|
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 05 May 2009 at 6:35pm
I was more along the lines of "he's an idiot" |
oldsoldier wrote:Posted By: ParielIsBack
Date Posted: 05 May 2009 at 7:00pm
Ironic, since he invaded two countries, allowed torture of suspected terrorists, and passed the Patriot Act. And he was so close, too. ------------- BU Engineering 2012 |
Posted By: Eville
Date Posted: 05 May 2009 at 7:20pm
|
Posted By: Benjichang
Date Posted: 05 May 2009 at 7:43pm
-------------  irc.esper.net #paintball |
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 05 May 2009 at 7:51pm
|
Since in his travels Obama asked his "friends" if they would take the Guantanamo detainees and all refused, he is stuck with Guantanamo. The rest of the world understands what we have there, and want no part in them. So his promise of shutting down Guantanamo is mute. And again after that first National Security Briefing, all of his plans for "ending" the war also have bit the dust. It is just fun to watch as he tap dances through his news conferences, trying to appease all the faithfull, while he can not do as he promised.
I can't wait to see what he does with the Pakistan fiasco, if the Taliban win they will have nukes, and let the good times roll, as we try to negotiate with people wanting thier rivers of honey and virgins in the next life. -------------
|
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 05 May 2009 at 7:55pm
| You're a sad man OS. |
Posted By: Eville
Date Posted: 05 May 2009 at 7:57pm
|
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 05 May 2009 at 8:50pm
I am going to quote this for Eville again. Oh and read #7 and #3 on this list. http://www.cracked.com/article_17318_7-awesomest-fake-news-stories-that-were-taken-seriously-by.html - http://www.cracked.com/article_17318_7-awesomest-fake-news-stories-that-were-taken-seriously-by.html ------------- Que pasa?
|
Posted By: mbro
Date Posted: 05 May 2009 at 11:39pm
Also, not many of the people remaining at Gitmo are that bad. The pentagon only had plans to prosecute a maximum of 80 prisoners that remain there under the military commissions (there are around 245 total there, numbers are iffy and inconsistent in publications) , the rest either were cleared to leave or we had no evidence that could even make it past the relatively low threshold for the Commissions, aka we think they're bad but have no real proof. Now onto your last sentence; I believe the word you are looking for is moot. And it is not a moot point, if it were moot that would mean there was nothing that could be done. Gitmo is going to close, it has been ordered. What we have to determine now is where we send those that can be tried and how we try them, those who are bad that we cannot try for various reasons and those that can be freed. Each of those four options have a variety of options in them that the admin can use. If you'd like me to elaborate on each of the options I can as I've spent the past four months researching the possibilities for closing Guantanamo. ------------- 
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos. |
Posted By: Eville
Date Posted: 05 May 2009 at 11:51pm
| BUT YOU ARE YOUNG, MBRO! |
Posted By: mbro
Date Posted: 06 May 2009 at 12:32am
-------------
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos. |
Posted By: brihard
Date Posted: 06 May 2009 at 3:39pm
|
The utterly partisanized mainstream media is tearing your country apart and making the rest of us shake our heads in sadness. It seems a news network cannot compete anymore unless they blatantly pander to a particular end of the political spectrum.
America needs its own BBC... ------------- "Abortion is not "choice" in America. It is forced and the democrats are behind it, with the goal of eugenics at its foundation." -FreeEnterprise, 21 April 2011. Yup, he actually said that. |
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 06 May 2009 at 3:41pm
Or even a CBC? I agree though, it's pretty ridiculous. |
Posted By: brihard
Date Posted: 06 May 2009 at 3:46pm
|
I'd pick BBC as a better non-partisan example than CBC, but CBC's still a significant step up. ------------- "Abortion is not "choice" in America. It is forced and the democrats are behind it, with the goal of eugenics at its foundation." -FreeEnterprise, 21 April 2011. Yup, he actually said that. |
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 06 May 2009 at 4:03pm
Well thats cause the CBC is just a wannabe BBC. |
Posted By: Bolt3
Date Posted: 06 May 2009 at 5:07pm
|
Lol @ the standing video. That just shows he had no ones respect, nothing else. (Bush) Which sort of defeats whatever your slamming your head against the keyboard about. Edit: And yes, its ridiculous that a news outlet would even take a political side to the extremes that they do. They've sort of lost all of their journalistic integrity. I read something a while ago, not sure where I saw it (digg?) but I saw an article or study about the Daily Show being the highest response to a question of where you get your news from. I love that show, but its still sad that that is true. (I'm sure it was a limited response pool, but still.) ------------- <Removed sig for violation of Clause 4 of the New Sig Rules> |
Posted By: Bolt3
Date Posted: 06 May 2009 at 5:16pm
Oh yeah? Are you pretty much just saying 'Gotcha, you're stuck with the decisions that my elected officials made'? How in the world could you turn that on Obama and say it is his fault? Makes no logical sense. And Pakistan, so what do you want to do? Invade another sovereign country with the incredibly uneventful situation thus far? EDIT: And there is a difference between Olbermann and Rush. The latter of the two is a fascist. ------------- <Removed sig for violation of Clause 4 of the New Sig Rules> |
Posted By: ParielIsBack
Date Posted: 06 May 2009 at 5:21pm
But but but but but NUCLEAR WEAPONS! 
You guys have a CBC? Now I definitely want to move to Canada? (Did it work better this time?) ------------- BU Engineering 2012 |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 07 May 2009 at 1:08am
Explain this please.
If only there was some other medium... |
Posted By: Bunkered
Date Posted: 07 May 2009 at 7:00am
I get CBC in Michigan. Sometimes hockey is on; other than that, I couldn"t tell you much> On the nuclear weapons thing though... If Pakistan's government fails and the United Nations makes no move to secure Pakistan's nukes that basically equals Osama Bin Laden having nukes. The Taliban are the government that fosterd Al-Quaeda, and we are in open war on them, by their decree nonetheless. Their proclaimed reason for existence is to destroy western civilization (specifically the US), and the government that sanctioned this, the Taliban, is slowly moving towards the capital city of Pakistan. The peace deal is off. I say let Pakistan deal with it though, at least for now. But at some point, we may be obligated to step in. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Gatyr
Date Posted: 07 May 2009 at 8:34am
|
Yeah, if only there was some American equivalent to the Canadian Broadcast Company, or the British Broadcast Company. What would we call it, though? :P -------------
|
Posted By: ParielIsBack
Date Posted: 07 May 2009 at 9:40am
The only reason they've made progress is due to Pakistan's clear disinterest in using military force, mainly because of the support they enjoy in Waziristan. Would you rather the Pakistani military confronted them outright, and the Pakistani people rose up and took over the government? I'm pretty sure that would not leave the nuclear weapons in a safe place, either. ------------- BU Engineering 2012 |