Fox-hole in a War
I've disagreed with Earl in the past when he said that the White House's war on Rush Limbaugh is counterproductive. But I do believe the White House's war on Fox is counterproductive.
Fox has a conservative but still more mainstream audience than Limbaugh. The administration is beginning to look whiny in trying to marginalize Fox.
I'm not sure this is "suppression" of free speech. They're not telling Fox what they can say or think or investigate, they're just saying they feel no need to give access to the network. Still, it's too thin-skinned an approach, and it's neither good politics nor good policy.
When the Right-wing saw that they could bully the recount and force George W. Bush to be declared the winner in the 2000 debacle in Florida, they came to realize that the Democrats and the generally disinterested so called independents, could be easily pushed into doing whatever they wanted. This has been their attitude ever since and has manifested itself in the creation of machinery that could be used to maintain this level of intimidation that has served them so well, in their quest to further their plans to turn us into a corporatist state. Lacking a large enough base of the extremely wealthy and near-do-well rich to overtly maintain their dominance, they have to maintain support amongst groups that are easily distracted by simple dogma, flag waving, and slogans, whose basic nature is to go with the flow to support their feeble understanding of reality, their bigotries and their delusional simplistic fundamentalist religious beliefs. The politics of intimidation, constructed by the likes of people like Lee Atwater and refined by people like Robert Ailes, Karl Rove and Ruppert Murdoch, have led to the creation of pseudo-news organizations like Fox (faux, fake, false, fraudulent ...) News, that act in fawning support of the Neocons when they were in power, and as their attack dogs once the American people became temporarily sane enough to knock them out of power.
President Obama has little choice but to address what has become a hate inspired effort on the part of the Right to continue the politics of intimidation and lies being carried out in support of the corporatist Neocons trying to establish an autocracy of the rich to replace our perceived democracy. Fox News is the mouth piece of their movement to destroy what is left of our democracy and must be recognized for what it is and what it represents, a clear attack against The Constitution and the principles we have been taught those principles stand for. Fox News is the enemy, acting in support of a small group that is determined to control our entire system at the cost of our freedom, our security and if necessary, at the cost of our lives, all in service to the very wealthiest 1/10th of 1% of our population. We must not become the nation of dolts they would have us to be. It is time to make Fox News anathema and make every advertiser bail out the way many did on Glenn Beck, when his insanity became so apparent. It is time to break the back of those who threaten to destroy us, just as assuredly as the Germans and Japanese tried 69 years ago, because they represent the same kind of threat, even if it comes wrapped in our own flag.
Workers of the world, unite! David's back again.
Fact: Florida election not stolen. Please, oh please, David, actually go back and look at FACTS. You know, the ones that aren't even disputed by left-leaning MSNBC. Why should anyone take a single thing you say seriously, when you begin your diatribe with a lie that has been disproven?
Your understanding of both the principles in the Constitution and the role of the Fourth Estate is hideously flawed. How exactly do journalists actually asking questions about the administration not serve the principles of the Constitution? Free press=annoyance to elected officials. That's a good thing, David.
If you can unwrap yourself from your nasty rhetoric, it might be amusing for you to actually attempt to explain your somewhat outrageous statements (Fox vs the Constitution would be as good a start as any), instead of spouting your always simple dogma and slogans. Talk about a feeble understanding of reality!
Do you really not understand that the term "politics of intimidation" just MIGHT be applied to a sitting president who attempts (unsuccessfully, thank God) to force the media to his own will?
Diane - I chose not to be abused by you. You are not worthy of response and are, I am fairly certain, why this forum has so few participants. You have deep ego gratification problems and a flawed view of reality that causes you to dominate the discourse to the point of making others vomit. I am not the only one who is sick of you and as I have read, not the only one to express that opinion. Take a hint, for once, and get some help.
This forum was pretty shy on readers long before I arrived on the scene, and I'm certain your particular brand of rhetoric has scared away a few as well.
General observation: Liberals cannot tolerate being questioned. First they try to stifle dissent, and if that fails, they personally attack the dissenter. I present for evidence: Post, immediately above. Those who withdraw from debate, hurling hateful insult behind them as they go, surely don't have much ground on which to stand.
Well, David, I am too polite to say what I'm sick of. But whether one says "I'm not going to argue with you" (in a forum for debate, of all places!) or "you make me vomit" (paraphrase of your post), it's all the same meaning--I cannot counter your argument, so I withdraw.
Pathetic. But at least if you have no cogent response to my specific questions, have the decency to just say "I'm not going to argue anymore" without all the personal attacks. They really don't help you make your point.
Oops, forgot to point out the obvious. I am worthy of a response, David, because you gave one! Flawed and deeply disturbed, perhaps, but you DID give one.
Diane - Any less of a response in my last post would be interpreted by you as a victory, in your twisted mind. I find your response entertaining, as I'm sure it will be to anyone in the psychological field who may stumble into this forum. I'm sure your response to this post also will provoke their interest as well.
Again, no meat there David. Just personal invective. Can you really not answer one simple question? Just pick one of them I asked. I'm super curious about your fascinating take on the Constitution. Do enlighten us.
Diane - I have absolutely no interest in anything you have to say. There is no point in beating a dead horse, especially one that doesn't have the sense to realize it has already been beaten to death.
For someone who has no interest, you certainly keep coming back. However, I do not care whether you have an interest in what I say. I asked you a question, about your outrageous Constitution comment, and I know you can't address it, but you certainly keep dancing around it.
See Jonathan's comments on this, above this post.
Diane - That I chose not to get involved in a discussion with a shrieking, marginally informed, doctrinally crippled psychotic, who has driven everybody away from this forum because she doesn't have the capacity to recognize that most of what comes out of her mouth, should be relegated to spewing from another orifice altogether, is my business. Yours should be focused on getting help. The forum now belongs to you again, as I don't have the stomach any longer for you. Bye, and good luck, you'll need it.
We'll certainly miss that brand of insightful rhetoric.
"shrieking, marginally informed, doctrinally crippled psychotic"
Ever hear of Ad Hominem arguments?
This is classic.
Here's some help
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#hominem