Anita Dunn Hearts Brutal Dictators.

Status
Not open for further replies.
The next time I pull out the "They did it worse" argument and someone calls me on it I'm coming back here and posting it. :p
 
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
It seems you missed something important.
Constitutional limitations apply to all levels and branches of government.[/QUOTE]

Alright. Maybe I bolded too much. Allow me to try again.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
No law has been made here. The media dicks around with the government in most countries. And in pretty much every one of those countries, the government dicks right back. It's when laws are passed in the midst of all of the dicking, that we start crossing lines, as confirmed by your constitution, apparently.
 
A

Armadillo

Alright. Maybe I bolded too much. Allow me to try again.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
No law has been made here. The media dicks around with the government in most countries. And in pretty much every one of those countries, the government dicks right back. It's when laws are passed in the midst of all of the dicking, that we start crossing lines, as confirmed by your constitution, apparently.
You're right, no law has been passed here, and therefore there has not been a clear First Amendment violation. My point is that they're starting to skirt the line, with the push to have Fox "alienated" and pressuring the other networks to maybe toss them from the White House Press Pool.

Putting aside hypothetical constitutional crises for a second, it's just plain unseemly for the White House to be getting involved in a public "war" with Fox. It makes the WH sound like a bunch of thin-skinned amateurs, and probably isn't the best thing to be doing when we're supposed to be dealing with more important matters (Afghanistan, anyone? Almost two months since McChrystal's troop increase request.) Krisken's link showed that some elements in the Bush White House wanted to publicly call out MSNBC, but the idea was shelved due to it being "unpresidential."

I really think this is going to backfire on Obama in a big way. Even liberal commentators are questioning the wisdom of going after Fox like this, and Fox's ratings are continuing to go up.
 
The Obama administration is in a tough spot in this one. Either they let Fox keep up their antics and not call them out on it, or they let it go and people start to believe it. John Kerry learned that lesson the hard way when he got swift boated.
 
You're right, no law has been passed here, and therefore there has not been a clear First Amendment violation. My point is that they're starting to skirt the line, with the push to have Fox "alienated" and pressuring the other networks to maybe toss them from the White House Press Pool.

Putting aside hypothetical constitutional crises for a second, it's just plain unseemly for the White House to be getting involved in a public "war" with Fox. It makes the WH sound like a bunch of thin-skinned amateurs, and probably isn't the best thing to be doing when we're supposed to be dealing with more important matters (Afghanistan, anyone? Almost two months since McChrystal's troop increase request.) Krisken's link showed that some elements in the Bush White House wanted to publicly call out MSNBC, but the idea was shelved due to it being "unpresidential."

I really think this is going to backfire on Obama in a big way. Even liberal commentators are questioning the wisdom of going after Fox like this, and Fox's ratings are continuing to go up.
I see. I don't think this could really lead to a constitutional crisis at all, which is why I don't take this as seriously, I guess, but I can see what you're saying now.

My only concern here is whether it would backfire, but Fox has been under pressure from the White House for a while, hasn't it? Didn't one of the linked articles mention that they haven't been granted any interviews with Obama recently, when the other networks have? Maybe being as explicit as the White House has been this time might be unwise, but I certainly don't think it's undue. And it's certainly not unconstitutional.
 
You know, if an administration want to piss off and alienate the viewers of Fox/CNN/MSNBC, then by all means, they can go nuts. I don't really care if they never give Fox or NBC or Cartoon Network an interview. It's their gamble to make and they can live with what comes from it, regardless of whom the administration is at the time.

In the end people need to watch a hell of a lot less 24 hour news networks anyway.
 
A friend of mine forwarded me this video and I found it mildly interesting. There are a few points that made me raise my eyebrows, although I'm hard pressed to to come up with a campaign that doesn't try to do this.

 
W

WolfOfOdin

Considering I'm a pragmatic socialist in favor of a mixed-system, I still find the woman to be a bit of an idiot.

Now to see if I'm going to be called a traitor or an irredeemable fool for believing in socialism >_>
 
Considering I'm a pragmatic socialist in favor of a mixed-system, I still find the woman to be a bit of an idiot.

Now to see if I'm going to be called a traitor or an irredeemable fool for believing in socialism >_>
Er, why? The entire western world is mixed-system, with varying degress of socialism. In fact, off the top of my head I can't think of any pure capitalist societies out there; maybe some in Africa but that's probably more anarchist than capitalist.
 
W

WolfOfOdin

Eh, there's a tea party group at Rutgers that's been picketing the main campus with "Socialism is Treason!" and "Disband the Democratic Party!" signs as of late when I go to speak to the admins there. I get accosted every time for my views haha.
 
Eh, there's a tea party group at Rutgers that's been picketing the main campus with "Socialism is Treason!" and "Disband the Democratic Party!" signs as of late when I go to speak to the admins there. I get accosted every time for my views haha.
I hope these aren't Rutgers students! Because if they were, the irony would be thick - demonstrating against socialism at a public university...
 
W

WolfOfOdin

I hope these aren't Rutgers students! Because if they were, the irony would be thick - demonstrating against socialism at a public university...
I dunno, but they ARE insanely annoying. I made a crack about the inevitability of empires to fall and a very angry, very big man got in my face and screamed that I was a traitor and should be deported to cuba with my commie buddies.
 
I hope these aren't Rutgers students! Because if they were, the irony would be thick - demonstrating against socialism at a public university...
I dunno, but they ARE insanely annoying. I made a crack about the inevitability of empires to fall and a very angry, very big man got in my face and screamed that I was a traitor and should be deported to cuba with my commie buddies.[/QUOTE]

Dang.. I'm glad Canadian politics are a little less cut-throat.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top