Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Lol, and I wouldn't compare a grotesque hate radio puppet to a hollywood entertainer, although Rush probably has his delusions of grandeur. Wasnt he convicted of the federal offense doctor shopping?, he had as much oxycontin as Jackson had of Diprivan...too bad MJ died, and Rush didn't od, where is the justice?
Wishing for someone's death is grotesque and ugly.
then how about all those 90 viagra tablets he got caught with at customs as he was going on vacation in the carribean, was that health care for the islanders? oxycontin is basically heroin and rush was and always will be a drug addict, in rehab they tell you not to even speak of recovery until you have been clean for 7 years and then he gets caught with 90 viagra tablets on a 2 week vacation? junkie. just like hollywood junkies, a lot more severe than trying pot when you are young. he is just trading one addiction for another, very common. didn't keep him from signing a new 400 million contract, i bet he really worries about his health care payments. then he bought his way out into probation where you or i would be doing some serious time getting maids and help to get and transport drugs and be his pushers.
And then after being caught, he sought help and is not an addict anymore. I would say that being caught saved his life.
But it sounds to me that in your opinion that once you are an addict and cured of that, you can NEVER be trusted again.
Strange how they both worded their comments "at the end of the interviews" almost exactly the same way.... Is it possible those comments were prepared before hand?
Their comments arent anywhere near the same. They explain what Anita Dunn meant. The Qs centered on Anita Dunn (though Steph. included Murdoch video) because her comment had made news, at least at you-know-where , that week.
If you're not allowed to look at the transcripts I put up about sixteen times, cover your eyes:
EMANUEL: Well, no, it's not so much a conflict with FOX News. But unlike -- I suppose, the way to look at it and the way we -- the president looks at it and we look at it, is, it is not a news organization so much as it has a perspective. And that's a different take.
And more importantly, does not have -- the CNNs and others in the world basically be led and following FOX, as if that -- what they're trying to do is a legitimate news organization in the sense of both sides and a sense of value (ph) opinion.
But let me say this. While it's clear what the White House and what Anita said, I mean, the concentration at the White House isn't about what FOX is doing. Its concentration is about, what does it take to make sure the economy is moving, creating jobs, helping the economy grow, making sure that we responsibly withdraw from Iraq, making sure what -- the decisions we make on Afghanistan, we ask the questions before we go ahead first into putting 40,000 more troops on the line and America's reputation, its most treasured resources, its young men and women, and its resources. That's what's occupying the decisions and the time in the White House.
AXELROD: Well, I don't -- you know, I'm not concerned. Mr. Murdoch has a -- has a talent for making money, and I understand that their programming is geared toward making money. All -- the only argument Anita was making is that they're not really a news station, if you watch -- even -- it's not just their commentators, but a lot of their news programming, it's really not news. It's pushing a point of view.
And the bigger thing is that other news organizations, like yours, ought not to treat them that way, and we're not going to treat them that way. We're going to appear on their shows. We're going to participate, but understanding that they represent a point of view.
But most importantly the transcripts prove that Faux was lying again: that a so-what mention at the end of long interviews the themes of which were NOT Fox or the press, stuck in when there's nothing left to say, isnt exactly "taking to the airwaves to get Fox".
Last edited by delusianne; 10-20-2009 at 10:37 AM..
Reason: got spooked about too-big quotes so deleted IVers' Qs.
Their comments arent anywhere near the same. They explain what Anita Dunn meant. The Qs centered on Anita Dunn (though Steph. included Murdoch video) because her comment had made news, at least at you-know-where , that week.
If you're not allowed to look at the transcripts I put up about sixteen times, cover your eyes:
EMANUEL: Well, no, it's not so much a conflict with FOX News. But unlike -- I suppose, the way to look at it and the way we -- the president looks at it and we look at it, is, it is not a news organization so much as it has a perspective. And that's a different take.
And more importantly, does not have -- the CNNs and others in the world basically be led and following FOX, as if that -- what they're trying to do is a legitimate news organization in the sense of both sides and a sense of value (ph) opinion.
But let me say this. While it's clear what the White House and what Anita said, I mean, the concentration at the White House isn't about what FOX is doing. Its concentration is about, what does it take to make sure the economy is moving, creating jobs, helping the economy grow, making sure that we responsibly withdraw from Iraq, making sure what -- the decisions we make on Afghanistan, we ask the questions before we go ahead first into putting 40,000 more troops on the line and America's reputation, its most treasured resources, its young men and women, and its resources. That's what's occupying the decisions and the time in the White House.
AXELROD: Well, I don't -- you know, I'm not concerned. Mr. Murdoch has a -- has a talent for making money, and I understand that their programming is geared toward making money. All -- the only argument Anita was making is that they're not really a news station, if you watch -- even -- it's not just their commentators, but a lot of their news programming, it's really not news. It's pushing a point of view.
And the bigger thing is that other news organizations, like yours, ought not to treat them that way, and we're not going to treat them that way. We're going to appear on their shows. We're going to participate, but understanding that they represent a point of view.
But most importantly the transcripts prove that Faux was lying again: that a so-what mention at the end of long interviews the themes of which were NOT Fox or the press, stuck in when there's nothing left to say, isnt exactly "taking to the airwaves to get Fox".
If you actually take the team to ready your own posts.... Emanuel says that Fox has a different perspective, a different (take on the news).
Axlerod says it's really not news. It's pushing a point of view, but understanding that they represent a "point of view".
per·spec·tive: Subjective evaluation of relative significance; a point of view
Tapper: It’s escaped none of our notice that the White House has decided in the last few weeks to declare one of our sister organizations “not a news organization” and to tell the rest of us not to treat them like a news organization. Can you explain why it’s appropriate for the White House to decide that a news organization is not one –
Quote:
Tapper: I’m not talking about their opinion programming or issues you have with certain reports. I’m talking about saying thousands of individuals who work for a media organization, do not work for a “news organization” -- why is that appropriate for the White House to say?
Tapper's questions, clink link for stupid's answers.
This quote that Sanrene had earlier is from Helen Thomas, the NY Times most senior (ever) WH reporter...maybe Obama should listen:
Quote:
It makes the White House look weak, unable to take Harry Truman’s advice and just deal with the heat. It makes the White House look small, dragged down to the level of Glenn Beck. It makes the White House look childish and petty at best, and it has a distinct Nixonian -- Agnewesque? -- aroma at worst. -Helen Thomas, 10-19-2009
Also found this comment interesting, though not from Helen:
Quote:
Obama is supposed to be larger than life, bigger than politics, and more awesome than any figure on the planet. But he’s acting like a spoiled Hollywood starlet aggrieved that Variety didn’t fawn over his latest movie.
Well golly, it seems that at least two from left leaning sources have spoken up for what Fox is. I haven't seen Fox use the quotes that delusianne used for the two princes of the administration but maybe they are cheating and lying as most lefties say.
And some of FOX's competitors in the news business are starting to come to the defense of a network widely known for its conservative commentary but also involved in basic newsgathering.
An "enemies list". Isn't that something we'd see in dictatorships and oppressive nations like...Iran, Venezuela, Myanymar, N. Korea.....etc, etc, etc?
Maybe his back pain healed in time, but by then he was addicted to the Oxycontin and just never got around to getting off it.
Could be. It has happened to many others.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
, that week.
