Thursday, April 16, 2009

CNN Reporter Slams FOX at Chicago "Tea-Party"

O.K. We now need a new title for CNN. For years we have been calling it the communist news network.

I vote for the Crazies News Network. Any better idea.

32 comments:

Sarkazein said...

This is a CNN reporter. She acts like a political hack.
She is not a commentator, she is a CNN reporter with an agenda. It is no wonder CNN is in the cellar when it comes to ratings.
If she called herself a liberal commentator then it would be fine...but she doesn't.

Anonymous said...

CNN? How about Clueless Neatly-combed Nitwits. Cowardly Nabobs of Negativity. I still like Communist News Network, and I'm sure they'd be much more accepting of a communist protest. www.shirts4freedom.com

Gregg said...

Certainly Not News.

Gregg said...

Here's the rest of the story.

Sarkazein said...

Gregg-

That was sick. Like Rush said- it is really them and us now. There are commenters right here on this blog that could watch both videos and NOT see the difference or more probable and worse, admit the difference.

Gregg said...

I couldn't agree more Sark.

Liberal POV said...

Gregg

I liked your link.

The comment I heard was " You are not talking to regular main stream people"

This is what I was commenting on here with Guy before the Billionaire sponsered Tea Party.

I ask those on this blog what they would say when the newsperson shoved a mic in front of them and ask what their agenda or protest was about?

Most really don't or didn't know. They just knew they were pissed off (by Fox News ).

Listing you would think these folks didn't expect to pay any taxes. None seem to realize they would get tax relief from Obama's plan.

Today's Charlotte Observer has a great cartoon with TEA Party protester holding signs. The signs say "Reduce my parents Social Security" " No Medicare for Mom", "Where's my Pink Silp"," Lay off my kid's teacher", Breadlines not Bailouts" "Crash baby Crash".

This is the logic produced by FoxNews and Rush.

Wolf's Head said...

Bitch.

Liberal POV said...

Wolf

Are you referring to the anger woman talking to the reporter, or Ann Coulter

Sarkazein said...

Gregg=

This is what I mean by "even worse". One would have to be a complete political moron not to be able to see the liberal agenda the CNN "reporter" displays in her "reporting". In the liberal comments here, he is not a complete political moron, just dishonest...a characteristic of liberalism that will be the demise of either our country or liberalism. Both together cannot survive.

Liberal POV said...

Sark

The Conservative agenda has done enough damage our country and it's citizens and you want to continue with the same damaging political nonsense?

The conseravitve damage is real and has aready happened.

Wolf's Head said...

My LPOV, aren't we obtuse today.

Oh yes I was was referring to the "commentator" who in the videos I saw portrayed herself as nothing more than a political hack for the left, rather like yourself.

As for Ann Coulter I don't believe the "B" word fits, unless it is for the "B" word "Brilliant".

guy faulkes said...

POV, you are incredible. You contend that a liberal gathering or demonstration is patriotic and a conservative event is contrived. Of course the tea parties represent mainstream America. You blindly refuse to realize that being liberal or conservative has nothing to do with parties. It has to do with issues and how you feel about them. Being a practitioner of the liberal religious faith, you have a hard time believing this and would never acknowledge it if you did. I believe you see the momentum rising in the favor of the conservatives. As this is against your religious beliefs, I can understand why you are afraid, very afraid.

CNN is irrelevant except as a sounding board. One should watch it to see how they spin an event. This gives you low end of the scale with which to compare other sources.

How about Cerebraly Negative Numskulls?

Bushrod Gentry said...

I saw the CNN strumpet confront a man holding a baby at the Illinois tea party. She asked him if he was aware that the Stimulus Bill was giving Illinois millions of dollars. I would have given a brick of 22s if he had replied,"Are you aware that this baby will be one of the people paying for it?" Do these people really believe that nobody has to pay the bill?

Blogger said...

Bill O'Reilly and Greta VanSusteren are discussing this woman right now. They are saying things like: "She is acts like a novice. She does not understand the first amendment."

As to the falling ratings of the other two networks, Greta points out that you cannot be vulgar and disdainful to listeners and expect to survive.

Sarkazein said...

She picked the most "sensational" looking person with the "Obama is a fascist" sign while there were thousands less sensational people around, then goes to the man holding his child because in her warped liberal mind this was no place for a child.
Yet, on the Bye-Bye Liberal Media post, a liberal comment states FOX is the "sensationalist" network.

Who is politically ignorant enough to compare a "news reporter" with proudly self-admitted conservative author and commentator and believe they are making a sane analogy ?
Any guesses POV?

Liberal POV said...

Guy

The one to five percent of the wealthiest people at the top get hate radio, Fox news and to a little lesser degree main stream media to do their bidding.

All of main stream media shop for hype and sensational stories to get the attention of viewers.
Ever notice when something important is going on we have months of Michael Jackson, OJ Simpson, Nicole Smith or some other nonsense?

Fox News and hate radio go further to shop for issues to anger as many Americans as possible about issues of no importance to the well being of their own families. Health Care, Living Wage, Education for themselves or their children, worker safety, fair lending practices, prison reform, improper use of military ( War in Iraq ). Redistribution of wealth to the top one percent.

If Fox and Hate radio can keep you pissed off about guns or God they can keep you weak and write laws to benefit the wealthiest in our society.

guy faulkes said...

POV, are you saying that the only people concerned enough to try to inform themselves with current events are conservatives? You then contend that this is because of an insidious conspiracy between a news network and many different radio programs to make people mad? You do not even consider that the events themselves are the issues causing concerns? You certainly do not give liberals much credit for trying to stay informed or voicing their opinions if the majority of people that watch news or listen to talk radio are rich conservatives.

Of course trickle down economics work. If not, let everyone shop out of the area for a month and see what happens to the local economy. Maybe you can understand that , if nothing else.

I love to read your posts. I can get these "through the looking glass" ideologies nowhere else. Other people are either to smart or to ashamed to voice them.

Gregg said...

I'm sure that LiberalPOV has at some point said something that remotely showed a grasp of reality but I can't remember when. Because of his total lack of credibility it's easier, these days, for me to laugh him off. As Guy suggest it is "Alice in Wonderland" stuff.

Nonny, on another thread, summed it up when he wrote: "I just don't understand how someone can develop such and pleasant and mean-spirited attitude towards their fellow humans based solely on political ideology."

IMHO he is the reason that we don't see many liberals on this blog. Andrew, RV, Pocket and Braveheart don't want to defend his absurdity so they largely stay away. Of course I could be wrong so I'll ask, do any liberals think LiberalPOV has a shred of credibility left after all of his ducking and dodging non-sequitors?

Gregg said...

"and pleasant" should read "an unpleasant"

Liberal POV said...

Guy

Go back and reread my post.

Ask your self or google to see who owns Fox News or other cable and network outlets?

The media is in the hands of a very few people.

While you are going after CNN now, I was going after CNN during the lead up to the Iraq War. All the media failed during the lead up to the war in Iraq. Only four interviews were done with those opposing the war and they were hostile interviews. Hundreds were done with pro war most Bush Admin people. During the same time lots of coverage was given to Michael Jackson or Anna Nicole Smith.

Rupert Murdock is not the friend of working people or small business.

Right now the deal makers and special interest are divided over the stimulus money and moved to green industries and Universal health Care.

Big Coal, Petroleum, Insurance, Pharmaceuticals and chemical companies need the flock of Hate radio and Fox News listeners to protect their interest. Guns, gays and God are just their tools to keep you pissed off. Why would Fox News have you believing you will pay more taxes under the Obama tax plan? Check out the truth on your own taxes? How many of those blogging here make more than $250,000.00 per year?

guy faulkes said...

POV, your attention span needs some work. I have said many times that I watch CNN as a counterpoint to Fox news. I decide from many sources what constitutes the truth on an issue. I do not blindly follow just those things that agree with my opinions. This is apparently past your ability to comprehend even if you have taken your mood altering medication for ADD.

On the other hand, I am starting to believe what others on this blog have indicated. The problem is not that you do not understand differences of opinion. It is that you are being deliberately obtuse because you cannot make a logical argument. The prior condition would have gained you pity. The latter only earns you contempt.

Reader said...

Lib has said many times he likes to tick off the right. The one thing he doesn't realize, it doesn't tick me off. Lib, you like to harp on things as we say in our family. It wastes time and as a friend told me, he doesn't feel he has a lot of time left on this earth and picks and chooses who he spends it with.
I don't have a problem with God, guns and gays and don't think anyone on here does either.

Conservatives know our taxes will go up. It's common sense. Lib, mark our words, taxes will rise. As much as I'd like to believe Obamas promises, it ain't gonna happen. You can't throw money around, without a way to pay for it.

My mother always told me that you don't tell people your business too. My opinion, if you don't share your personal business, you won't give people a reason to judge you. So Lib, it's none of your beeswax how much we make in our personal lives.

Gregg said...

I find absolutely HILARIOUS the notion that CNN would be expected to oppose so many Democrats that so enthusiastically supported the war in Iraq!

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002

"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

For good measure I'll throw in France:"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

Sarkazein said...

Gregg-

I had not read some of those quotes. Very informative.

With Obama officially giving aid and comfort to our enemy with the release of the interrogation documents as thou our enemy had won the war and demanded them as part of a conditional surrender, do you think the Democrats that officially signed on to these interrogation methods will have similar quotes available and released to the public?

Gregg said...

Sark,

Obama has said that the CIA agents are safe but he wouldn't rule out charging Bush/Cheney with war crimes. If the left is intellectually honest then they will demand that the Democrats that officially signed on to these interrogation methods be prosecuted. Of course we know that they are not intellectually honest.

Which reaction do you think LiberalPOV will have: 1)ignore the post, or 2)blame it on Foxnews, Rush and flagpins? I'd give the third option as him saying "Wow, I didn't know that, good point" but I know hell will freeze over first.

Liberal POV said...

Gregg

Would you give me a link to the Democrats present in those White house briefings on torture? I do know many in the military were opposing the torture tactics.

Sarkazein said...

POV-

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/08/AR2007120801664.html

Gregg said...

Be careful what you ask for Lib.

Liberal POV said...

Sark

Couldn't make it work. Who was at the white house tortire breifing besides Bush Admin?

Sarkazein said...

POV-

Congress oversees the actions of the CIA. Congress was briefed on the interrogation methods. Some asked if the CIA was being tough enough.
Just like the Iraq War Congress signed off on... the Democrats and Republicans alike. Main difference, is the Democrats cowerer in the face of discomfort.
Just like your comments that nothing matters what Obama does wrong, as long as his perceived poll numbers are up.

Gregg said...

Lib,

It worked for me and evidently for blogger because he posted it. You even commented and true to form you changed your tune as soon as you found out how many Democrats were complicit.