Skip to main content
  • CNSNews.com
  • MRC TV
  • Biz & Media
  • Culture & Media
  • Take Action!

Join Us @:
Facebook
Twitter
Amazon Kindle

Free email alerts!

NewsBusters logo
June 19, 2013
  • Home
  • Blogs
  • About
  • Forum
  • Take Action
  • Contact
  • Donate
  • Search
  • RSS

Hot Topics

  • Obama ScandalWatch
  • IRS Targets Tea Party
  • Censoring the News
Home » Blogs » Noel Sheppard's blog
  • Serena Williams Slams French Taxes: 'Seventy-Five Percent Doesn't Seem Legal'
  • Bozell Column: Censoring the 'Anti-Gay' Viewpoint
  • Martin Bashir, Who Compared Conservatives to Hitler, Now Decries Nazi Comparisons
  • Bob Herbert: There Would Be Tons of Outrage on Left if Bush-Cheney Pursued Obama’s Policies
  • Liberal College Students Sign Petition to Make Spying on Fox News Legal
  • ABC Hypes Obama Family's 'Beautiful' Vacation, Avoids Any Hint of Extravagance
  • Piers Morgan Defends the Nanny State: 'People Need Nannying'
  • Liberal Pundit Marc Lamont Hill Condemns Photo of Obama Holding ‘Military Style’ Watergun

Media Mostly Ignore Democrat Saying 'F--k the President'

By Noel Sheppard | December 11, 2010 | 22:19

A  A
Noel Sheppard's picture

As NewsBusters previously reported, the three broadcast networks completely ignored the revelation that an unknown Democrat said "F--k the President" during a heated meeting of the House Democratic caucus Thursday.

A further examination has identified that despite corroboration by other sources, practically no American media outlets reported the news:

  • Not one single newspaper
  • Not one single wire service

A review of LexisNexis identified that the so-called most trusted name in news, CNN, reported this matter only once, but did so rather delicately during the 7 AM broadcast of "American Morning":

JOHN ROBERTS: Eighteen minutes after the hour. President Obama's tax cut deals got members of his own party livid. To give you an idea of just how high frustrations have boiled over here, multiple reports this morning that one Democrat uttered the "f" word and the president in the same sentence during a heated debate.

Uttered the "f" word and the president in the same sentence? Is that what happened?

Not according to the Huffington Post's Howard Fineman who told Keith Olbermann Thursday evening:

HOWARD FINEMAN: There was, there was sotto voce apparently, you know, not too loud, an "F the President.” There was a, there was a “No f-ing way.” There was a “He F-ed it up.” You know, we had a fairly liberal use of the F-word inside those closed doors, and there was a lot of anger. 

That's a bit more graphic and vulgar than uttering the "f" word and the president in the same sentence. As such, in the only report that CNN did on this subject, it poorly conveyed what actually happened.

Compounding the peculiarity of this media boycott is that according to ABC's The Note, the Democrat Congresswoman that was speaking when one of the f-bombs was dropped spoke to the press about it after it happened:

During a speech by Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., one of only a handful of House Democrats to back the President’s plan, a colleague interrupted with his own colorful opinion.

“I don’t think the curse word was directed at me,” Berkley told reporters following the caucus meeting.  

So if Berkley spoke to reporters about this, why didn't any report it other than ABC's The Note, Fox News, MSNBC a number of times, and CNN once.

For those thinking the reason might be the sensitivity of the word being used, consider that when Vice President Dick Cheney dropped an f-bomb to Sen. Pat Leahy (D-Vt.) on June 25, 2004, the press were all over it.

The event got reported by the Associated Press, UPI, the Boston Globe, the Washington Post, and the New York Times although the Gray Lady wasn't specific about the word Cheney used.  

On cable television CNN covered it more than a dozen times. CNBC reported it four times. 

On broadcast television, ABC's "Good Morning America" and the CBS "Evening News" shared the event with their respective viewers.

The incident got so much coverage that Slate published a piece that day called "When Do Papers Print the F-Word?" Howard Kurtz the next day even explained to Washington Post readers the paper's decision to share Cheney's vulgarity.

More recently, news outlets weren't shy about covering Vice President Joe Biden whispering in Obama's ear as he signed healthcare reform into law, "This is a big f--king deal."

Frankly, this dropping of the f-bomb was all over the place: AP, Gannett, UPI, Agence France Presse, Chicago Tribune, Washington Post, Boston Globe, Los Angeles Times, New York Times, and USA Today.

On cable television, CNN covered it more than 20 times, Fox twelve, and MSNBC five. Readers are advised that Fox and MSNBC don't transcribe all of their programs.

On  broadcast television:

  • ABC covered it that day on "Good Morning America" and "World News with Diane Sawyer"
  • CBS on its "Morning News," "Early Show" and "Evening News"
  • NBC on its "Today" show and "Nightly News"

Add it all up and it appears fine to report f-bombs when they are said by Republicans or express a positive sentiment about a piece of legislation the press supports.

But when they're dropped in reference to a president the media loves, not so much.

Exit question: If a Republican had said "F the President" when George W. Bush was in the White House, do you think it would have gotten much coverage?

About the Author

Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. Click here to follow Noel Sheppard on Twitter.
  • Pat Leahy
  • Noel Sheppard's blog
  • Login to post comments
  • Printer-friendly version
Stop George Soros

Comments

How about Rep.

Submitted by UpNorth on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 10:32pm.

Joe Wilson?  He only used six letters, and we were subjected to the faux outrage of the left and their supplicants in the LSM for weeks.  Justice Alito, who didn't say anything out loud?  Again, the wails and gnashing of teeth over his supposed breach of decorum. 

Now, meh, nothing to see here, move along.

To re-elect Obama would be like the Titanic backing up and hitting the iceberg again.
  • Login to post comments

This is precisely the reason---

Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 11:00pm.

why I suddenly lose the ability to hear when some conservatives start in with their, "Well, now, you know we can't lower ourselves to the level of  being anything less than sugary sweet to our liberal opponents.  If we let ourselves slip to using derogatory language, we have lost the debate because they will use our bad words against us."

Really?

Like the Lib-Dims don't make up stuff on the fly as it is?

If you don't fight them off at your property line, the next thing you know, they are in your house, telling you how to live and making rules about what you can or cannot say.

That is exactly why we are burdened with political correctness today.

MD

"The credibility of the story is undermined by the selection of sources." - (h/t Jer)
  • Login to post comments

Obama says:

Submitted by Burnside on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 10:40pm.

F**k America.

  • Login to post comments

There is a very good reason

Submitted by Jer on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 11:26pm.

There is a very good reason this isn't exactly dominating the media's attention:  An unidentified person in a private meeting muttering "F*** the President" is simply not worth excessive coverage.

On the other hand, a congressman (whose identity is known) yelling that the President is a liar during a nationally televised address to a joint session of Congress is a very big deal.  And a Vice-President of the United States telling a U.S. Senator on the floor of the Senate to "go f*** yourself" is a fairly big deal.

Those earlier incidents aren't even remotely comparable to this one.

Jer

  • Login to post comments

Obama WAS lying.

Submitted by NL207 on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 11:31pm.

Obama WAS lying.

  • Login to post comments

You know for a fact

Submitted by Jer on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 11:52pm.

You know for a fact that the President deliberately uttered words which he knew to be untrue?  Is it conceivable that it could have been an honest misstatement?  A respresentation based on an erroneous assumption?

I am confident we could comb through similiar addresses by past Presidents and find multiple analogous examples

In any case, Wilson's outburst was inexcusable.  There would be ample opportunity and far more appropriate venues for him and/or his colleagues to set the record straight. 

Jer

  • Login to post comments

Jer you have jumped the shark

Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 12:00am.

Jer you have jumped the shark with this post, Obama knew and you know he knew.  This is why lawyers are hated is that they know the client is guilty and still says they are innocent.

Nuke em til they glow; then shoot em in the dark
  • Login to post comments

Obama was speaking about

Submitted by NL207 on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 12:53am.

Obama was speaking about healthcare at the time, Obamacare in fact. 

Obama has claimed numerous virtues for America's Affordable Healtcare Act.  Among them, he has clamed it will cost less than $1T over ten years.  This is a lie and Obama knows this is a lie. 

Obama says that Obamacare will reduce Healtcare costs.  This is a lie.

Obama says if you like your current plan you can keep it.  This is a lie.

Obama says that if you like your current doctor you can keep him or her.  This is a lie.

Obama says there will be no death panels.  This is a lie.  Obama has already appointed Drs. Berwick and E. Emmanuel.  He knows they favor government rationing of healthcare.

Lies, lies, lies.

 

Why are you so damn easy?  Takes all the fun out of it.

  • Login to post comments

I'm embarrassed for you NL...

Submitted by Jer on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 1:38am.

You apparently don't even know what specifically prompted Wilson's childish tantrum.  Remember your chest-thumpery about never doing any research before posting?  Might be a good time to rethink that policy.

Jer

  • Login to post comments

Obama has been lying through

Submitted by NL207 on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 1:59am.

Obama has been lying through his teeth for two years about Obamacare.   When there was no actual Obamacare legislation to lie about, he made promises that he had no way of fulfilling himself nor any idea if they would ever be fulfilled even if they could be.  How do you tell people what a bill contains if it does not exist?

Since the Obamacare legislation has been drafted, passed and signed into law, Obama has continued to mislead the public about what is in it and indeed, he at one point admitted he had never read the bill!   So, if Obama has never read the bill, how does he know that anything he has said about it is truthful?????  If he has never read the bill. one might surmise he had no business signing it into law.

You lose again counselor.

  • Login to post comments

Anytime a liberal is embarassed FOR a conservative,---

Submitted by matthewdean on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 1:57am.

the conservative has said something that shot a laser beam of truth that exploded a  liberals sacred belief.

Why is it that you just cannot accept that Wilson said to Obama "You lie!", because the bosstid was  indeed telling whoppers?

MD

"The credibility of the story is undermined by the selection of sources." - (h/t Jer)
  • Login to post comments

I'm embarrassed for you, Matthew...

Submitted by Jer on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 2:36am.

NB's perennial spelling bee champion messed up "embaRRassed"...in the subject box no less.  :-)

Jer

  • Login to post comments

Great catch, Jer---

Submitted by matthewdean on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 2:49am.

now if only you had misspelled perennial, I could die happy.

I thought about arguing that I "be" a champion speller, rather than "bee" the top dog who defeated all  of my opponents who just happen to reside in an apiary, but alas, you nailed me good and there ain't no graceful way out.

Rats!

Not to mention the beautiful segue from my ragging you about embera, embarrr, imbarra, you know, into your subject line.

Double Rats!!

MD

"The credibility of the story is undermined by the selection of sources." - (h/t Jer)
  • Login to post comments

md...

Submitted by Jer on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 2:55am.

You can be damn sure I checked and rechecked "perennial" before posting it, Matthew. 

I figure I've now closed the gap to about 15 to 3 in your favor, so I can go to bed happy.

Yea!  Or is it "Yay"?

Jer

  • Login to post comments

Jer---

Submitted by matthewdean on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 3:06am.

You are more than generous with your odds.

As tomorrow is another day; I say we are even.

Yeah, we be even.

I wuz gonna say, "We bee even", but that would have put you one up.

MD

"The credibility of the story is undermined by the selection of sources." - (h/t Jer)
  • Login to post comments

MD

Submitted by Newsbubba on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 11:04am.

Yo ebonics bee real goot, yo!  It jus bee dat Jer ain't down wid dat shiite, you no whuy I'ma sayin, yo?  I'da thunk him being a Yobama fan an all, he be real goot at dat shiite, main.

What amazes me is how Jer stays up till the wee hours of dark playing his keyboard.  What sort of shiite do you smoke, Jer, or do you use the old reliable Scotch?

I any case, you tend to get really snarly in the early morning.  You're going to blow a vessel one of this days if you don't learn to calm do, bubba.

Comrade Bubba
  • Login to post comments

It is a sign of total victory of the conservative argument

Submitted by NL207 on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 11:18am.

When we have reduced your arguments to the correction of spelling.

 

Q.E.D.

  • Login to post comments

Below is the link of "you lie" Jer

Submitted by TheHistorian on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 11:46am.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/09/gop-rep-wilson-yells-out_n_281480.html

This shows three whoppers falling out of President Obama's mouth in about 45 seconds.  Now do you know why Wilson said "you lie", Jer?  Because Wilson had enough of the string of lies that had been laid out in front of people.  The only problem I have with this is that the rest of Congress, which had passed the bill and OBVIOUSLY had written and read it (sarc) didn't also stand up and say the same thing.

The President to this day does not appear to know what is in the legislation.  Or is ignoring facts.  Ignorant or liar.  Take your choice, Jer.

“Liberals tend to put the onus of your success on society and conservatives on you and your family.”

Dennis Prager

  • Login to post comments

Mr. Historian...

Submitted by Jer on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 7:09pm.

Thanks just the same, but I already knew the reason given by Wilson for his outburst, which, after all, was the issue being addressed.  For heaven's sake, it had been discussed in excruciatingly thorough detail for several days at this website.  I'm shocked that someone as bright as NL apparently didn't remember it.  How about you?  You had to look it up?

Jer

  • Login to post comments

Obama was lying and we wiped

Submitted by NL207 on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 12:17am.

Obama was lying and we wiped the floor with you and your arguments earlier in this same thread on this topic. 

As noted before, Obama has admitted he didn't even read the bill, so anything he said in his SOTU speech about Obamacare is the product of ignorance.  Representing such statements as true is simply lying.

  • Login to post comments

The only thing you need to wipe--

Submitted by Jer on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 12:59am.

The only thing you need to wipe--having thus far wiped squat--is the sludge off your eye glasses or contacts so that you can actually read and understand the principal point of the article and comment thread.   Somewhere...somehow...you became confused and missed it entirely.  Once again, whether or not Obama deliberately lied or merely misspoke or was ignorant or was operating under honestly held but erroneous assumptions is not the issue.

Jer

  • Login to post comments

Obama's blatant deception is

Submitted by NL207 on Wed, 12/15/2010 - 12:44am.

Obama's blatant deception is EXACTLY the point.  Joe Wilson was entirely justified in calling him out.  He WAS lying.   Yet this media excoriated him for stating the obvious : Obama was insulting the intelligence of everyone he was adressing at the time.  Apparently you think its no big deal for POTUS to blow smoke up everybody's arse and then tell them it's the best medical care they ever received.

This Democrat Reprobate who was said 'F*ck Obama' was not excoriated by the media.  He objects to Obama making this compromise, something which is being done entirely on the up-and-up.  It is a naked quid-pro-quo and all the cards are on the table.  There is a massive difference of degree between 'You lie' and 'F you'.   The venue this epithet was hurled in was less public. But the remark was certainly innappropriate.  So why isn't the press upset about this?  Do they think it is appropriate for Congress critters to tell POTUS 'F U'?

  • Login to post comments

I know.

Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 9:28pm.

  President Obama said illegal aliens would not get coverage under ObamaCare. But there were several versions of the bill floating around and the house versions DID give illegal aliens coverage.

  • Login to post comments

Obama is lying.  He knows

Submitted by NL207 on Wed, 12/15/2010 - 12:46am.

Obama is lying.  He knows full well the Federal Courts, probably in the person of one of his own appointees, will order the Government to cover illegals.

  • Login to post comments

Abortion

Submitted by dmaley1714 on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 11:47am.

Obama lied when he said there would be no fed funding of abortion in the healthcare bill. There was and is fed funding in the healthcare bill for abortion. The Prez knew this when he signed the executive statement to fool Stupak into voting for healthcare. The exec statement would not have been neccesary if the bill did not contain ed funding for abortion.
  • Login to post comments

Evidence, please.

Submitted by eis271828 on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 1:14am.

Both PolitiFact and FactCheck said otherwise.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/sep/09/joe-wilson/joe-wilson-south-carolina-said-obama-lied-he-didnt/

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/09/obamas-health-care-speech/

If my information is stale, please let me know.  Obama is a politician, so I'm certainly not saying he's never lied.  I was just under the impression that he was not lying in this specific case.  You seem quite certain, however, so I will re-evaluate based on any evidence you care to provide!

  • Login to post comments

Read your own references,

Submitted by NL207 on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 1:20am.

Read your own references, jerk.

"The president repeated his promise that his plan won’t add “one dime” to the federal deficit. But legislation offered so far would add hundreds of billions of dollars to the deficit over the next decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office. "

 

"Obama said his plan won’t “require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have.” It’s true that there’s no requirement, but experts say the legislation could induce employers to switch coverage for millions of workers."  -- and Obama knows damn well it will.

 

You lose.

  • Login to post comments

Please be nice.

Submitted by eis271828 on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 1:28am.

I asked for information.  I do not see how that makes me a jerk.  I also did read my own references.  Wilson said "You lie!" after Obama's comment on health care for illegal immigrants, which both sources said was not a lie.  The other parts of his speech may very well have been untrue at the time, and/or still.  That's not particularly relevant to the very specific information I requested.  If your argument is that Wilson was saying that Obama was lying about multiple things, then that's fine, but that was not the impression I got when I watched the speech live.  I admit that I haven't watched any of it again since.

Finally, I disagree that I lost.  I am not in any sort of competition.  I merely seek the truth, hence my question.  Thank you for taking the time to respond!

  • Login to post comments

Debate is by definitoin a

Submitted by NL207 on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 1:41am.

Debate is by definitoin a contest.  Some regard it as a contest of ideas.  I have come to appreciate that the ideas by themselves are not enough.  Some skill in expressing them is required.

You should reflect on the intelligence of linking references that support your opponent's argument.

  • Login to post comments

I did not start out debating

Submitted by eis271828 on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 2:17am.

Unfortunately, I now find myself debating my own intentions.  I was asking for information.  I did not, and do not, view you as an opponent.  I believe I see the possible source of our miscommunication, though.  I responded to your initial statement that Obama was lying.  Without any other context, I assumed you were referring to Wilson's statement as applies to Obama's single comment on health care and illegal immigrants.  In the time it took for me to find the articles I linked to (and read them), you had listed out other statements you felt were lies.  I did not look at the conversation that had taken place in the interim.  Thus, the links I refrenced did not relate to any argument from my perspective.  I am guessing that you took my question to be in response to your full list and a continuation of your argument with Jer.  I apologize for said confusion, and will endeavor to read comment updates between the time I click "Reply" and the time I click "Save."

  • Login to post comments

Hmmmmm....

Submitted by Rukus on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 11:52am.

You sound vaguely familiar... hmmmm...

_____________________________________________________________ I'm not too drunk to dance! It's just that people keep stepping on my hands!
  • Login to post comments

I've never commented before,

Submitted by eis271828 on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 3:18pm.

I've never commented before, so any familiarity is a coincidence.

  • Login to post comments

If you come here and utter so

Submitted by NL207 on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 4:03pm.

If you come here and utter so much as a word in defence of Obama, you can expect some business.  If you don't expect this, then some here would question either your sanity, your intelligence, or both.

As for Obama's lies :  How much more outrageous do his falsehoods, misrepresentations and deceptions have to become before he is branded a liar?  Very little of what he says is verifiably true.  There is always some gotcha or pre-qualification to his statements, even when they might be construed as factual based on the limitations he specifies.    I have no regard for remarks like: "If you like your present plan you can keep it." when the speaker knows full well he is engaged in direct action to drive your present plan out of business or to nationalize it.  You cannot keep what he has destroyed and he knows it when he tells these lies.

  • Login to post comments

Good to know

Submitted by eis271828 on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 4:25pm.

My intention is not to defend Obama.  At least not in this case.  I read NewsBusters because I want to hear the various authors' perspectives on things.  I rarely read the comments, but in this case I saw one that did not match the conclusions I had reached earlier, so I asked for your evidence.  I see now that your comment was a more general statement than I initially interpreted it as.  As for the veracity of Obama's other statements, I reserve comment for a later date.  Most likely, you are correct in your assessment in most, if not all, cases.  There are plenty of reasons to dislike Obama.  I prefer to make sure they are the right reasons, is all.

  • Login to post comments

This man, Obama, tries to

Submitted by NL207 on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 7:54pm.

This man, Obama, tries to deceive the people about his true intentions.   When coupled with his actions, I know all I need to know about him and must reject him as a leader.  He is the worst President in the last century which is saying something since that includes Jimmy Carter, Clinton, Warren Harding and Woodrow Wilson.  He is also likely worse than any of our early Presidents including James Buchanan.

You cannot be comfortable with this behavior either based on what I see of your commentary here.   I do not see how you can reach any other conclusion than the one I have already reached and remain intellectually consistent.

  • Login to post comments

Everything NL207said---

Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 2:45am.

has been borne out.

Surely you don't think Obama personally read that 2,000 page abortion of a bill before commenting on it, do you?

If he commented on it without having read it, the very best take on the situation would be that he was merely acting stupidly, (ala the Cambridge Police, according to him).

It appears, however, that he was blowing smoke, which is a political euphemism for lying.

MD

"The credibility of the story is undermined by the selection of sources." - (h/t Jer)
  • Login to post comments

LMAO@eis271828

Submitted by obamaotp on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 9:31am.

Using those site as validation is just laughable. They are just a tad bit BIAS!

 

http://mommylife.net/archives/2010/03/snopes_factchec.html
  • Login to post comments

There is bias in everything

Submitted by eis271828 on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 4:25pm.

All we can do is attempt to eliminate bias. It is very unlikely that we can ever completely succeed. Dismissing something as biased is not a sound argument. Blatant bias is perhaps a basis for not trusting a source. The article you linked to (rather, the article your link linked to) did not make a solid case for the bias of FactCheck.org, in my opinion.

If you search Fact Check for Obama's controversial birth certificate, they will tell you it is genuine. Is this an example of liberal bias? Maybe or maybe not. Here is their rather compelling argument: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

This is not an indictment in any way.

Still, there are instances where they clearly lean one way. If you Fact Check Obama's Czars, the editors refer to them as similar to those of George Bush and "holding entirely prosaic administration positions." While the title may be prosaic, this hardly applies to Cass Sundstein [sic], the Dir. of Informational and Regulatory Affairs. In referencing the Constitution, Mr. Sunstein said, "Why should we be governed by people long dead?" These are foundation rattling comments from a presidential advisor that would seem to deserve comment. The remark, cannot be found on Fact Check.

The article in question, http://www.factcheck.org/2009/09/czar-search/, does not discuss any specific czars. It's entire focus is on the supposedly abnormal number of czars under Obama. Including criticism of a single controversial czar is beyond the scope of the article.

Next, I plugged in the question, "is Obama's healthcare government run?" The reponse [sic] was, "no," because the healthcare bill states the "council isn't permitted to mandate coverage, reimbursement or other policies." The statement is there alright, but Fact Check overlooks the next 2000 bill pages which do precisely that.

I haven't read the next 2000 pages in their entirety, so I cannot fully comment. However, the council is one thing established by the bill. If - if - the bill, authored by Congress (or interns therein) goes on to mandate coverage, reimbursement, or other policies, that is not inconsistent with describing the council's authorities. To be clear, I am not a fan of the health care bill, but I think it should be attacked based on facts, and it's important to get those facts straight. Similarly, when accusing a site of bias, the burden of proof is on the accuser. (ClearGov seems to have read http://www.factcheck.org/2009/04/government-run-health-care/, which incidentally links to another relevant article: http://www.factcheck.org/politics/doctors_orders.html).

If the facts and/or conclusions used in an article are incorrect, that is also not laughable. That is unfortunate. Personally, I always appreciate well-reasoned, fact-based arguments. If you have issues with the specific articles mentioned, I welcome your input. However, I was only referencing them in regards to the specific comment on health care for illegal immigrants. Widening this particular conversation to Obama's other statements would likely make the conversation rather (more) unwieldy.

  • Login to post comments

And the reason for your take---

Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 11:45pm.

on this situation is nothing more than liberal spin.

You completely ignore the "blinding glimpse of the obvious" by asserting that it was "An unidentified person in a private meeting muttering ---."

The person could easily have been identified, but it would make the Lib-Dims look bad.

National political figures looking out for America's citizens absolutely must meet in  private, huh?

Well, you probably got the muttering part right.

MD 

"The credibility of the story is undermined by the selection of sources." - (h/t Jer)
  • Login to post comments

But we can feel confident

Submitted by 26CX on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 11:51pm.

But we can feel confident that if it were an unidentified Republican member of congress in a private meeting saying that about Bush, it would have been all over the news. 

Jer's trying to do a good job of providing cover for the Dems and MSM, but it's just the way things are,..

"But my advice to you can be summed up in two words: Thicker skin." - Jer
  • Login to post comments

Reflex action---

Submitted by matthewdean on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 12:01am.

Jer can't help it.

Trouble is, only liberals like Jer are unable to see that in denying  there is a heavy media tilt to the left, that their labors are about as effective as shoveling back the tide with a pitchfork.

MD

"The credibility of the story is undermined by the selection of sources." - (h/t Jer)
  • Login to post comments

Are you really ADK, Jer,

Submitted by ThisnThat on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 11:53pm.

or are you simply as stupid? As I told him in the earlier post on this topic, go back to the days of the Tea Party, and the congressman who reported that some Tea Party member called him a racist name and spit on him. Who was that Tea Party member? The answer is --no one. Because it didn't happen.

Yet the MSM was all over that rumor, reporting on it day after day, making all sorts of accusations and basically setting up the Tea Party as a proven racist organization. But even after a $100,000 award was offered for any proof; any identified individual; any video of the incident -- the reward remains unclaimed.

Now you say that the MSM must remain silent on this week's f**king remark because an unidentified person in a private meeting muttering "F*** the President" is simply not worth excessive coverage. Bu$$shite, Jer. These two stories are equivalent. Both involve an alleged name calling by an "unknown person". The only difference is that in this current case, the person is known. There are witnesses. No one muttered anything -- someone came right out and said it very loudly. And if you offer a $100K reward, the reward will be payable by tomorrow to one of several different people who will come forward with the details. In the Tea Party case, there is no one that can come forward because the incident simply didn't happen -- but the MSM reporting sure happened.

So stop trying to defend the undefensible, and quit with your santamonious (sp?) explanation of why it's perfectly proper for the MSM to act like they do. Go back and try using those tactics on 5-year olds or liberals, because they might just fall for it. Unlike adults.

__________
“Didn't win the Medal of Honor? Didn't even serve? Then lie about it. We'll support you." — 9th Circuit Court

  • Login to post comments

ThisNThat...

Submitted by Jer on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 12:10am.

How about getting your facts straight--including what I've actually posted instead of what you've simply made up--and maybe we can have a productive discussion of the issue.

Until then, you might want to reconsider flinging the "stupid" card, lest it blow back in your face.

Jer

  • Login to post comments

No deal, Jer

Submitted by ThisnThat on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 12:15am.

I stand by my comments. As always. Your position is undefensable. As usual. Productive discussions begin with honesty. Like the MSM -- you want to leave out the obvious, and misrepresent the data to fit your template. No productive discussion is possible under those circumstances.

__________
“Didn't win the Medal of Honor? Didn't even serve? Then lie about it. We'll support you." — 9th Circuit Court

  • Login to post comments

They do indeed begin with honesty, TnT...

Submitted by Jer on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 12:35am.

So how about giving it a shot?

Show me where I said the media "must remain silent" about this?  What "data" have I misrepresented?Where is it reported that "F*** the President" was spoken "loudly".  Fineman says just the opposite.  As I said, get your facts straight.

Jer

  • Login to post comments

Here you go, Jer

Submitted by ThisnThat on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 10:24am.

Jer says: Show me where I said the media "must remain silent" about this?

Here it is: is simply not worth excessive coverage.

Now, here's what Jer wants to do -- he will want to compare his words "excessive coverage" with "must remain silent", and pretend to take the high road by saying "See? See! They aren't exact! They're not!". And that would give Jer another excuse to try to completely sidetrack this entire thread -- because to Jer ------- it's all about Jer, all the time.

But before Jer goes down that rabbit hole, let me remind him that his words "is simply not worth excessive coverage" was in direct response to Noel's statement "the three broadcast networks completely ignored the revelation". The key here is "completely ignored", NOT "mostly ignored". So, in fact, Jer was equating Noel's "completely ignored" statement with Jer's own "excessive coverage" statement. And since he had done that already, Jer has no basis upon which to nitpick the "must remain silent" comment (which he very much wants to do).

So, Jer -- checkmate. All your arguments are boxed in. You have nothing left to play with. And I've been completely honest with you. So go back home, give ADK a hug and kiss for all of us, and try not to show your stupidity in the public so much.

__________
“Didn't win the Medal of Honor? Didn't even serve? Then lie about it. We'll support you." — 9th Circuit Court

  • Login to post comments

I would say "check and

Submitted by ironchefofmunchies on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 12:13pm.

I would say "check and mate".  Well done!

  • Login to post comments

Good one TnT, A classic example of how to not get, Jer'ed. lol

Submitted by upcountrywater on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 3:49pm.

because to Jer ------- it's all about Jer, all the time.

You Didn't Build That.

  • Login to post comments

Congratulations, TnT..

Submitted by Jer on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 9:07pm.

You've just posted one of the most transparently fallacious, remarkably unresponsive--and we may as well toss in laughably disingenuous--arguments in the annals of this website.  If there is a t-shirt award for unadulterated drivel, you have earned NB's entire remaining stock.

You can arbitrarily assign my anticipated response to whatever road you wish, play the mind reader and endeavor to divine the intent behind my statements, and insert whatever presumptions you think will prop up your, not only feeble, but utterly unwarranted conclusions.  However, you can neither change facts nor the plain meaning of my words.

And here are a couple of facts, jack:  I responded to Noel's article--not to any particular phrase or sentence or series of sentences he employed within that article.  In the latter case, I would have either copied and pasted--as has generally been my custom--the exact segment in question, or I would have specifically referred to it in some other manner in my reply.

As anyone can see from a review of the piece, while Noel notes the three broadcast networks have completely ignored the incident, there indeed have been several limited and scattered references by other media sources, e.g. CNN, an ABC blog, and Howard Fineman [and perhaps others].  In response, I expressed my opinion why the matter had not dominated the media's attention.  I then listed factors which I believed sufficiently distinguished this incident from the Wilson and Cheney episodes and therefore did not justify excessive coverage.  At no time did I even hint that the "media must remain silent."  The media, TnT, unless you are too simple to grasp the concept, does in fact include those very sources which have already reported the story.  As such, wrenching out of my post a demand or even an implicit desire that the "media must remain silent" stands common sense and logic on their heads.  And your placing such a construction on my words--and continuing to do so--calls your capacity for comprehension as well as honest debate into serious question.  Let me drive the point home:  I never said it.  I never implied it.  I frankly wouldn't give a ratzass if NBC, CBS, ABC and FOX made "F the President" their lead story for the next three nightly news broadcasts.  I stated an opinion clearly and unambiguously.  You may have disagreed with it, but its meaning was plain.  To mount a personal attack, you invented words and tried to put them in my mouth.  Own up to it. 

By the way, I note you thus far have failed to produce a sliver of proof that the epithet was "loudly" spoken (despite the evidence published by Noel to the contrary).  Are you still standing by that comment, too?

And what the hell is this fascination with ADK?  If you are so obsessed with him, kiss him yourself.

Jer

  • Login to post comments

The lady doth protest too much, methinks

Submitted by ThisnThat on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 8:34am.

Your credibility is showing, Jer. You're simply not that perfect. You might as well get used to it.

BTW, how many times can you say "I" in one rant about how wronged you are? Are you really obama in disguise? And oh yeah, I'm not a mind reader of liberals. I don't have a clue as to what you really think, Jer. But I do know your arguments typically revolve around a pivot point that you, and only you, know about and constantly try to use to divert attention back to yourself. 

__________
“Didn't win the Medal of Honor? Didn't even serve? Then lie about it. We'll support you." — 9th Circuit Court

  • Login to post comments

Methinks you should address the splinter in thine own eye, TnT..

Submitted by Jer on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 10:05am.

"I" didn't appear a single time in my initial post.  Nor did it contain insulting language of any kind whatsoever.  It was a straightforward opinion/observation.  Unfortunately, you chose to personalize the issue immediately with your snarky, juvenile "are you ADK or just stupid"? response.

So spare me your whining over my reaction to your provocation.  If you don't want the dialogue to pivot toward me, then don't steer it in my direction right off the bat with a personal slur.  Fair enough? 

Jer

  • Login to post comments

Show's over, Jer

Submitted by ThisnThat on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 2:02pm.

I've seen how you manage to drag the conversation into the mud in numerous other threads, and I get bored with the never-ending "It's all about Jer, and how smart I must be" comments you provide. So, I'm going to spare other posters that same boredom. Go ahead and make your final comment, Jer in response (because you can't help it, lol), and that'll be it for this time.

__________
“Didn't win the Medal of Honor? Didn't even serve? Then lie about it. We'll support you." — 9th Circuit Court

  • Login to post comments

An unidentified person in a

Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 11:56pm.

An unidentified person in a private meeting muttering "F*** the President" is simply not worth excessive coverage

There were according to Fineman numerous Democrats saying those pejoratives.  In addition this was official USA congress business and not private.  You are right that other incidents are not remotely comparable as this tops the cake.

Nuke em til they glow; then shoot em in the dark
  • Login to post comments

According to Fineman there

Submitted by Jer on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 12:23am.

According to Fineman there was apparently liberal use of the F-word.  There is no estimation as to the number of Democrats who may have used it.

Caucuses are private meetings, Dan.  That means no reporters, no C-Span, no publishing in the Congressional Record.  Comparing them to a nationally televised address by the President before a joint session of Congress is absolutely ludicrous.

Jer

  • Login to post comments

Merely your opinion, there, Jer---

Submitted by matthewdean on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 12:33am.

You truly appear to be laboring weakly in defense of Lib-Dims.

You don't like it that Obama got called out as a liar, and you really don't like it that he has been proven to be one.

Therefore it is incumbent upon you, loyal liberal lackey that you are, to downplay the libs mutterings while playing up, even though he spoke truth to power,  the supposedly horrible verbal atrocity committed by ol' Joe Wilson.

You normally do much better in picking your fights.

MD

"The credibility of the story is undermined by the selection of sources." - (h/t Jer)
  • Login to post comments

Part fact...part opinion. 

Submitted by Jer on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 12:40am.

Part fact...part opinion.  That's mostly how this commenting thing works, Matthew.

Sorry if you disapprove of my choice of fights.  Would you like to pick the next one?

Jer

  • Login to post comments

Well, what a shock, Jer---

Submitted by matthewdean on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 1:00am.

you are really into this 'blinding glimpse of the obvious' today.

I will cogitate upon your heavy statement about part fact - part opinion and render an opinion of my own on that some day.

I have never before had any input reference your selection of which particular inane liberal point you wish to don sword and buckler to defend, and given your overall record as a lib on a conservative site, I certainly wouldn't want you to look a bit more intelligent by giving you good, sound, conservative advice. 

Better you continue to pick your own Little Bighorn battlefields, there, Custer. 

"battlefields" was purposely plural.   :o)

MD

 

 

"The credibility of the story is undermined by the selection of sources." - (h/t Jer)
  • Login to post comments

No need to defend the plural

Submitted by Jer on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 1:06am.

No need to defend the plural "battlefields".  There was more than one in the general area of Custer's demise anyway.

Jer

  • Login to post comments

How about the

Submitted by UpNorth on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 10:27pm.

one day coverage of "this is a big F*****g deal", Jer? 

And, it should be a big deal.  The one making the utterance is a Public Employee, paid by the taxpayers.  If his words are embarrassing, or offensive, he or she should man-up and take credit for saying what they said. 

However, I agree, those earlier incidents in no way compare to the hypocrisy of the media trying to bury this story.

To re-elect Obama would be like the Titanic backing up and hitting the iceberg again.
  • Login to post comments

Can anyone deny the truth, now?

Submitted by shooter on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 12:41am.

Can anyone deny the truth, now? Can anyone deny the fact that the MSM is nothing but an extension of the extreme left of the Democrat party?

_________________________________________

"An armed society is a polite society" -- Robert A. Heinlein

  • Login to post comments

The networks said ...

Submitted by holeinthehull on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 1:02am.

 

Why should the networks care-

Obama gives the conservatives what they wanted,

then turns around and scolds the liberals,

then invites an impeached prez back to the WH for advice

and then walks out of his own press conference leaving President  Slick "I am a whore for a mic" Willie in charge to answer questions and listen to himself talk.

This is simply why none of the networks carried the story because they all agreed,

" F&*K it who cares anymore."

www.holeinthehull.com

 

 


 

 

Holeinthehull
  • Login to post comments

Nancy Pelosi herself proved

Submitted by Barack_must_go..... on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 7:25am.

Nancy Pelosi herself proved the Ass Clown is always lying when ever he opens that fly magnet of a mouth of his. She did so on National TV when she uttered the words " We must pass the bill, to know what's in the bill ".                                                       

As far as I am concerned the Ass Clown needs to stand before the Congress and apologize to Joe Wilson of South Carolina, the Robert's Court and the people of the United States of America for perpetrating the biggest lie America has ever been forced to endure........BARACK OBAMA HIMSELF.

Barack_Must_Go.....

  • Login to post comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Stop Censoring The Gosnell Trial!

Editors' Picks

  • President Obama parrots false 'equal pay' statistic (Bader @ OpenMarket.org)
  • Whose war on women? (FRC)
  • Romney's revenge (Avik Roy @ NRO)
  • Relax, the Arizona voter registration ruling was narrowly drawn by Scalia (Hans von Spakovsky)
  • Snowden loses his moral authority with dangerous leaks (Rothman @ Mediaite)
  • Rapper Lil' Wayne stomps on American flag (Rare)
  • Apple releases information about data requests from NSA, other agencies (LA Times)
  • Five myths about privacy (Solove @ Washington Post)
  • Polls show Americans more libertarian on pot, gay marriage, guns (Barone)
  • Single men are opting out of society thanks to suffocating liberalism (Right Wing News)
  • What if Superman had to join a union? (Steven Crowder)
Chuck Norris's picture
Chuck Norris
Chuck Norris Column: The Superman of Dads and Grads
Cal Thomas's picture
Cal Thomas
Cal Thomas Column: Broadcast Nets, Ailes Is What's Good for You
Ann Coulter's picture
Ann Coulter
Coulter Column: If the GOP Falls for 'Immigration Reform' Ruse, It Deserves to Die
Walter E. Williams's picture
Walter E. Williams
Walter E. Williams Column: Let People Sell Their Organs to Sick, Needy Recipients
Michelle Malkin's picture
Michelle Malkin
Malkin Column: Anthony Weiner's Underage Girl Problem
More >

RSS FeedAmazon KindleFacebookTwitter

Stop Censoring The News!

Audit the Man of Steel?!
more cartoons
  • Slate Says Lack Of Emotionalism Sunk Gun Control Bill
  • O’Reilly: Obama Could Be Impeached If Evidence Shows Intel Agency Read Emails Without Warrant
  • Christie: Obama’s ‘Charm Offensive Should Have Started January 2009’; ‘Bit Late in Dating Game’
  • Howard Stern to Jimmy Fallon: ‘How You Got The Tonight Show I Don't Know. You Barely Beat Craig Ferguson’
  • National Media Skip Over Charges U.S. Ambassador Abused 'Minor Children'
More >
NewsBusters

Executive Editor
Matthew Sheffield

Editor at Large
Brent Baker

Senior Editors
Tim Graham
Rich Noyes

Managing Editor
Ken Shepherd

Associate Editor
Noel Sheppard

Contributing Editors
Tom Blumer
Geoffrey Dickens
Dan Gainor
David Limbaugh
Mithridate Ombud
Clay Waters
Scott Whitlock

Senior Contributor
Mark Finkelstein

Contributing Writers
Matthew Balan
Michael M. Bates
Erin R. Brown
Jack Coleman
Kyle Drennen
Douglas Ernst
P. J. Gladnick
Stephen Gutowski
Matt Hadro
D. S. Hube
Kathleen McKinley
Dave Pierre
Amy Ridenour
Julia A. Seymour
Terry Trippany
Rusty Weiss
Brad Wilmouth

Publisher
Brent Bozell

Site Design
Dialog New Media

 

  • Home
  • Blogs
  • About
  • Forum
  • Contact
  • Donate
  • Search
  • Account
  • rss
  • CNSNews
  • MRC TV
  • Biz & Media
  • Culture & Media
  • Take Action!
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Amazon Kindle
  • Advertise
  • Jobs

Copyright © 2005-2013 NewsBusters.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use