FOX news really is setting the pace, isn't it?

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**warpcrafter**

So all this makes me wonder if Glen Beck's standup comedy show isn't just selected clips from his commentaries.

**Tyras**

sebster wrote:
Tyras wrote:
Frazzled wrote:I agree. We need balanced reporting. Every time some right wing nutjob gets on the air, there should be a counterpoint to provide a view from the real world. I can't believe the government permits this sort of thing to go on the air. There should be a law.

LOL, like ABC's sleepover at the White House? Not only did they not offer a counter point, but they wouldn't even let conservatives buy commercial time during that love fest. The fact of the matter is that there are no balanced news sources. Every one of them, from cable news, to the papers, to online sources has some kind of agenda. While one company or organization might be right leaning there is another just as biased in the other direction. It does seem to be fashionable to be on the left side of issues though. An easy example would be MSNBC, ABC, CBS, CNN on the left and Fox on the right lol I really think it irks President Obama that he can't pull them all over to his cause.

See, that’s missing the point I’m making.

Sure, TV news coverage in the US is pretty crappy across the board. It is often openly partisan, and the fact checking is dreadful. But the extent of those failings matter, and no station fails as hard or as often as FOX. The youtube video I posted showed a guy talking about how a difference on policy over immigration can only be solved by suffering a terrorist attack.

See, if one chooses not to give someone their change and pockets the 35c for himself, he is not a thief on the same scale as a guy who makes living assaulting and mugging people every night.

No US news coverage is great. But nothing anywhere is as bad as FOX.

Watch MSNBC. Keith Olbermann and his cohorts are even worse.

**sebster**

Frazzled wrote:I agree. We need balanced reporting. Every time some right wing nutjob gets on the air, there should be a counterpoint to provide a view from the real world. I can't believe the government permits this sort of thing to go on the air. There should be a law.

Who said there needed to be a law? I made the point 'FOX news is quite a disgrace' and that point stands alone. Pretending that someone is suggesting a legal change is dodging the point.

What's needed is public awareness of how bad the situation is, and an unwillingness to tolerate such crap.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tyras wrote:Watch MSNBC. Keith Olbermann and his cohorts are even worse.

Olbermann is a smug jackass, but the content of his stuff is never as bad as the youtube link. If you think otherwise, please demonstrate with video links.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dreadwinter wrote:It's because they mix it up with fart jokes and stupid humor.

It's really quite clever how they do it.....

The Simpsons is given leeway because it rates well and makes money for Murdoch, and at the end of the day Murdoch's first loyalty is to money. Murdoch is something of a social conservative and quite prudish in his morals, but you wouldn't know it from the reality TV line up FOX produces. Similarly, as long as FOX studios is putting out profitable movies they can make whatever subversive stuff they want.

That's not to say that Murdoch purely chases the ratings, there are other ambitions in play. All 170 odd papers Murdoch owns supported the Iraq war, and all did so very stridently. This wasn't because Murdoch cared about the war, and it certainly wasn't because the editors of 170 papers all miraculously came to the same conclusion... but after the invasion legislation was put forward in the US, UK and Australia, all freeing up media ownership. In all three cases this legislation was supported by the heads of state that had been looking for support for the invasion of Iraq.

**Valhallan42nd**

Frazzled wrote:I still don't get how this relates to the crab people.

Did someone say crabs?

Don't you worry your pretty head, Frazzled. We Marylanders have this one covered.

**greenskin lynn**

yea, maryland is where crab go to die

**Frazzled**

Excellent. Good to see the right flank is protected against crab people incursion. We've got it under control down here, but damn the entire left flank is exposed. California, put down your weed and protest signs and get it in gear over there!

**Kilkrazy**

California hasn't got any money left to defend against the crab people.

**Frazzled**

Sell Hollywood. Maybe the Chinese are buying.

**reds8n**

They already bootlegged it months ago.

**Frazzled**

**generalgrog**

Don't forget the great Ron Reagan came from Cali.

GG

**Frazzled**

And Nixon.

But of course, that was before they were bankrupt.

**Ahtman**

sebster wrote:
Frazzled wrote:I agree. We need balanced reporting. Every time some right wing nutjob gets on the air, there should be a counterpoint to provide a view from the real world. I can't believe the government permits this sort of thing to go on the air. There should be a law.

Who said there needed to be a law?

The Democrats. They have been pushing to make legislation for a bit now that would require radio and TV to give equal airtime to politcal shows. In other words if Rush Limbaugh is given 2 hours then the radio station would have to give 2 hours to Donna Brazil. They have been trying to get it done for awhile now. I forget what the name of the bill is off the top of my head at this hour.

**Frazzled**

Reinstating the Fairness Doctrine.

**generalgrog**

I don't think the fairness doctrine is really necesary. There is enough liberal radio talk shows out there on satellite radio you don't need it.

GG

**Tyras**

It's not really about fairness when ya think about it though. There could be five million liberal radio shows and only five conservative and they'd still be pushing the legislation. It's about quashing any form of dissent. It's all a sham.

I'm not gonna get fired up in these threads anymore though. Frazzled made a good point in another thread that in the end nobody is convincing anybody of their point and this forum remains about toy soldiers.

I hope the fairness policy gets put down though. I'd hate to see the day when a case of Sam Adams had to have an equal number of Buds for fairness. Four slices of Dominoes in every Papa Johns pizza. Pepsi's mingling with Coke. Dogs and Cats living together MASS HYSTERIA!!!

**Frazzled**

Dogs and Cats will never live together. Rusty the Tiger has sworn unholy vengeance upon all the neighborhood cats that torment him.

Down with the feline oppressor!!!

**dogma**

Tyras wrote:It's not really about fairness when ya think about it though. There could be five million liberal radio shows and only five conservative and they'd still be pushing the legislation. It's about quashing any form of dissent. It's all a sham.

And then you think about it a little more and realize that it isn't a particularly good tool for that sort of thing. After all, conservatives could just as easily use it to run liberal media through the ringer.

**sebster**

Ahtman wrote:The Democrats. They have been pushing to make legislation for a bit now that would require radio and TV to give equal airtime to politcal shows. In other words if Rush Limbaugh is given 2 hours then the radio station would have to give 2 hours to Donna Brazil. They have been trying to get it done for awhile now. I forget what the name of the bill is off the top of my head at this hour.

Yeah, that things been floating around a while, but what did it have to do with this thread?

**Tyras**

dogma wrote:
Tyras wrote:It's not really about fairness when ya think about it though. There could be five million liberal radio shows and only five conservative and they'd still be pushing the legislation. It's about quashing any form of dissent. It's all a sham.

And then you think about it a little more and realize that it isn't a particularly good tool for that sort of thing. After all, conservatives could just as easily use it to run liberal media through the ringer.

Eh, the Dems got around the law with fireing Inspector Generals without the 30 day cooling off period and appointing Czars with more power than congressionally confirmed cabinet members. I'm sure they'd find a way around any fairness law they create.

**Frazzled**

dogma wrote:
Tyras wrote:It's not really about fairness when ya think about it though. There could be five million liberal radio shows and only five conservative and they'd still be pushing the legislation. It's about quashing any form of dissent. It's all a sham.

And then you think about it a little more and realize that it isn't a particularly good tool for that sort of thing. After all, conservatives could just as easily use it to run liberal media through the ringer.

Incorrect. The media is exempt as its just "reporting."

Its important because thats the next step. You can't decry one network in particular when this nonsense can and does come from a plethora of stations.

EDIT: For the record Beck portrays nutty arguments. But I imagine even he's right on occasion (not this one). I don't watch him either.
Fox is news and opinion shows. With the exception of OReilly I don't watch the opinion shows. OReilly is almost as crotchety as I am.

**Valhallan42nd**

That law used to exist. Rush rose after it was repealed.

**Ahtman**

sebster wrote:
Ahtman wrote:The Democrats. They have been pushing to make legislation for a bit now that would require radio and TV to give equal airtime to politcal shows. In other words if Rush Limbaugh is given 2 hours then the radio station would have to give 2 hours to Donna Brazil. They have been trying to get it done for awhile now. I forget what the name of the bill is off the top of my head at this hour.

Yeah, that things been floating around a while, but what did it have to do with this thread?

Uhm, did you not read what you wrote? You did. Frazz mentioned the idea in his own special way and you questioned whether anyone said there should be a law. Well there is, so I told you. Right hand doesn't know what the left hand is typing?

**Kilkrazy**

How does that law fit with freedom of speech?

**Orkeosaurus**

Poorly.

**Frazzled**

Kilkrazy wrote:How does that law fit with freedom of speech?

It doesn't. It violates it at a most basic level. That was circumvented via "pbulic ariwaves" argument. Even though, if it were the public air waves, it would fall to the rights fo the people and the states under the 10th Amendment. But of course the 10th Amendment has been gutted ever since that 1860s unpleasantness.

**dogma**

Tyras wrote:
Eh, the Dems got around the law with fireing Inspector Generals without the 30 day cooling off period and appointing Czars with more power than congressionally confirmed cabinet members. I'm sure they'd find a way around any fairness law they create.

Just like the Republicans found a way to go to war prior to a Congressional declaration. Both parties are quite adept at exploiting legal loopholes to their advantage. To presume that the fairness doctrine would be any different is just obtuse.

Frazzled wrote:
Incorrect. The media is exempt as its just "reporting."

Forgetting the silliness of judging the correctness of a statement about a law that doesn't exist:

You 'correction' doesn't change anything about my comment. Rush, Olberman, and all the others would still be lumped into the 'media' category just like they are now. If it ended up being one-sided the pendulum would simply swing back with a change of administration.

The fairness doctrine isn't a great idea, but it also isn't going to crush all political dissent on the airwaves.

**Tyras**

dogma wrote:Just like the Republicans found a way to go to war prior to a Congressional declaration. Both parties are quite adept at exploiting legal loopholes to their advantage. To presume that the fairness doctrine would be any different is just obtuse.

With the intelligence at the time, which the Dems agreed to as well, President Bush acted within the framework of the War Powers Act of 1973. I disagree with his decision to invade Iraq. I think we should have completed our goals in Afghanistan before opening another can of worms, but like it or not he acted within the constraints of the law.

Can you point to where appointing czars with authority far outreaching that of Congressionally confirmed Cabinet members is Contsitutional, and thusly legal?

Can you find the law that supersedes the Inspector General Act of 1978 that requires the President to inform both Houses of Congress no later than 30 days prior to the removal of an Inspector General?

You can't, because there are no such laws. You mentioned in another post that you were writing an article, so you must be familiar with research. Let the above questions stand as a challenge, because it seems to me that the President is acting outside the law, and the only reason nobody is calling him on it is his gangster style brow beating of any and all opposition, well that and everybody that disagrees with him seems to automatically be labled as a racist by every civil liberties organization under the sun.

**dogma**

Tyras wrote:
With the intelligence at the time, which the Dems agreed to as well, President Bush acted within the framework of the War Powers Act of 1973. I disagree with his decision to invade Iraq. I think we should have completed our goals in Afghanistan before opening another can of worms, but like it or not he acted within the constraints of the law.

Oops, you're right. I got the dates mixed up in my head. The authorization was actually passed in 2002.

Tyras wrote:
Can you point to where appointing czars with authority far outreaching that of Congressionally confirmed Cabinet members is Contsitutional, and thusly legal?

The same clause which requires the confirmation of cabinet members: Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2

but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

Congress doesn't have to confirm executive appointees should they choose not to.

Also, most of the 'czars' aren't officers of the United States because they hold no official designation (czar is a colloquial term). Instead they derive their authority from the office of the President; acting with his implicit authorization, but limited to his realm of authority.

Tyras wrote:
Can you find the law that supersedes the Inspector General Act of 1978 that requires the President to inform both Houses of Congress no later than 30 days prior to the removal of an Inspector General?

(b) An Inspector General may be removed from office by the President. If an Inspector General is removed from office or is transferred to another position or location within an establishment, the President shall communicate in writing the reasons for any such removal or transfer to both Houses of Congress, not later than 30 days before the removal or trans-fer. Nothing in this subsection shall prohibit a personnel action otherwise authorized by law, other than transfer or re-moval.

Obama suspended the inspector general, with pay, prior to removing him. The article clearly states that it does not apply in such an action.

Tyras wrote:
You can't, because there are no such laws.

Other than the laws you mentioned, no.

Tyras wrote:
You mentioned in another post that you were writing an article, so you must be familiar with research. Let the above questions stand as a challenge, because it seems to me that the President is acting outside the law, and the only reason nobody is calling him on it is his gangster style brow beating of any and all opposition, well that and everybody that disagrees with him seems to automatically be labled as a racist by every civil liberties organization under the sun.

Gangster style brow beating? Allegations of racism? Where is this happening?

What I see is a Democratic Party that finally got its act together, and Republican Party that has no idea what to do about it.

Regardless, the main reason no one is calling him out is because he hasn't done anything obviously illegal.

**Tyras**

Article two, section two, clause two:
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The SIXTEEN Czars he has appointed act may not hold an offical designation, but they act as a public minister deriving their power from the office of the President. They, in the name of that office, can dictate policy and answer only to the President. They can't even be called in front of an oversight commitee.

The Constitution commands that government officers with significant authority (called “principal officers”) are nominated by the president but then are subject to a confirmation vote by the U.S. Senate. And principal officers include not only cabinet-level department heads, but go five levels deep in executive appointments, to include assistant secretaries and deputy undersecretaries.

Inferior officers are appointed either by the president, cabinet-level officers, or the courts. But even then, the Constitution specifies that only Congress can authorize the making of such appointments. For these inferior officers, only Congress can create their offices, and also specify who appoints them. And such officers are still answerable to Congress. They are subject to subpoena to testify before Congress, and Congress holds the power of the purse by making annual appropriations for their division or program.

White House officials, by contrast, cannot be compelled to appear before Congress and testify. They are alter-egos of the president himself, and as an agent of the Executive Office of the President they are entirely removed from Congress, and not answerable to Congress in any way. That was why during the Bush administration White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten, Senior Advisor Karl Rove, and Counsel Harriet Miers could not be compelled to testify to Congress when President Bush invoked executive privilege (a battle they may well have won if they pressed their case all the way to the Supreme Court). Senior presidential aides advise the president alone, and the separation of powers forbids congressional interference in that relationship.

But that’s the problem with these czars. The president can have any advisors he wants, people who privately advise him or meet with others on his behalf, but have little or no actual authority to exert government power on anyone. These czars, however, are directly dictating policy, impacting millions of lives in the way that few assistant secretaries or deputy undersecretaries do.

Senator Byrd (D) West Virginia

I'll just let the word out from the horse's mouth on the Inspector General's story. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Gerald-Walpin-speaks-the-inside-story-of-the-AmeriCorps-firing-48030697.html

I admit I'm a bit rusty in the research department, but I am having a bit of difficulty finding where IG Walpin was suspended with pay while the President informed Congress of his dismissal in accordance with law.

To the brow beating and charges of rascism for those who oppose Obama: I won't even dignify your remarks other than to ask the question as to how a deaf and blind person can find the faculty to post on an internet forum?

Toy Soldiers Tyras... The Forum is about Toy Soldiers... I'm spending waay to much time debating what even Democrats are saying is illegal rather than debating the pros and cons of taking a Dakka Predator or two over a Land Raider Crusader.