Obama's war on Fox risk worth taking

Obama is starting to think of himself as Mussolini. If he could, Obama would just shut down Fox News. He can't (not yet, anyhow) so he "declares war" on them. Expose the cockroaches to some light, and they usually just scatter- but this one, he seems to want to stay and fight (and thereby make himself look like the Chicago flunkie that he is........)

Obama is into squashing free speach, end of story. And he must be stopped from doing it. He uses the meda just as many other reps have done in the past - to foward his intentions. Good for Fox.

I hope Obama makes more mistakes like this, it shows he has absolutely no respect for the constitution or bill of rights. It's making people wake up, every time he violates those rules.

I find your corrections to be wholly fair, and I more or less agree with all of them.

I'm glad we were able to find a place of relative truth in this discussion.

alright saladin, i actually am agreeing with you on quite a bit. I guess i was a little harsh in my first post, i didn't mean to sound like Obama was ruling the people and conforming them like a dictator, that was my bad. I merely think Obama should just defend himself, not attack the media. He has to deal with this in a smart way especially since he already had false claims of being a socialist, i dont want him to gain false claims of being a dictator either. N for the being ready for it, he should ahve been ready more than any other president...he's the first Black man to become president, i hate how i even have to admit there's racism and hate in this great country, but there's ton. He's gotta be ready to take it and turn the other cheek, not spark more. and he's gotta take political fire the same way. the rest of the points we either agree on or as you say are political philosophies that both have a right to and would make no sense to debate.

The part about the military, that's not what i meant at all. I understand i'm a citizen of course and i understand my certain rights. Also, i do love your comment about being able to choose my leaders even though i have commanders, both are good terms that perfectly fit the definition and I agree with you on that. I might actually use that in the future, so thank you. But there's still a few things i think you're mistaken on about the military.

About the being free from ideals, that is a little mistaken. Once a soldier your ideals must change a little. Well, not necessarily change, but you have some added to yours. For example a soldier must follow an officer's command, even if it's against his personal ideals, for fear of court martial. the ideals you use to decide on whether or not you follow the command is the Uniform Military Code of Justice, basically ideals they hand you. The rest i agree with you on, no we're not mercenaries and yes we can have our own ideals, but if they don't go with the military it's either get discharged or get a court-martial.

The thing about the drafted civilian-army I totally disagree with. This has been found to falter throughout history. I see what you mean about not wanting them to continue a never ending war (like what Afghanistan is turning into), but it just wont work having a drafted civilian army. the training required is too much in case a full scale war were to break out (speaking theoretically of course) against another super power, no matter what the possibility we must always be prepared for this (the world believed WW1 was the war to end all wars, and one person changed that 20 years later). Also, it's been found that one must pay and field an army that is a profession, for civilian duties would get in the way. yes we don't have crops to tend to or harvesting seasons, or slaves to watch, but we still have our own civilian duties that would force us away from being able to fully commit to military service. And of course we wouldn't be able to draft here because our citizens would never go for it.

Your last sentence and my last statement, i'm sorry if you thought i meant you needed to take on my military view of obama as commander in chief, i was merely stating that he could be considered an actual leader for some (military personnel) and as i said before i like your definitions better, he would be a commander.

"you need to move past your idea that the only views of the President come from a civilian, and liberal, stand point. Due to being in the US Army Obama is 100% my leader. In fact, if he were to say "go get me a cup of coffee" i would, by order of a commanding officer, have to go get him one. He's my military LEADER, just as a king would be."

No, the very last thing this nation needs is to be told to be more like the military. Not because the military isn't filled with valiant, upstanding and intelligent men, but because its purpose and the ideals it must have to achieve that purpose are exactly contrary to the ideals of a Democratic Republic.

The fact that he is your ultimate commanding officer doesn't make him your leader, you CHOOSE your leaders. Having to follow orders does in the military does not mandate that your superiors are your leaders anymore than someone who works at McDonalds is obligated to think of the CEO as their leader.

As an individual, you're free to believe whatever you want.

And you need to move past the fallacious notion that the military is some sort of autonomous entity in America free from its ideals and alien to its way of life. You're not mercenaries we condition as bulldogs to unleash on our enemies, you're part of our citizenry.

The way you live does not dictate how America should be, if anything, the military has become too mercenary and should become more Republican. I would prefer a society of drafted citizen-soldiers to a professional fighting class always maintaining a constant war. Because the ideals of the military are wholly inadequate with the ideals of the Republic, and I shouldn't have to accommodate them just because that's how you've been conditioned to operate.

I know that sounds harsh, and I'm not trying to demean your service, but it's the truth. Your position is subservient, not dominant. The military is a part of, not the leader or the hired mercenary force of, the Republic.

Because a society that heeds its military whims over its republican ideals goes the way of Rome, and as such it is you need that needs to accommodate to the democratic mindset of the president, not I to your dictatorial one just because of your career choice.

You've flip-flopped from your original claim, which is that he was dictatorially silencing the press. If you don't stand by that position anymore, then the rest of this is just differences in political philosophies that have nothing to do with the issue.

In short, if Obama isn't silencing Fox, then you need to concede that and not use it as a criticism against him. But on to the post.

"so...not a leader, just a citizen. hmm, he can order people to kill and to die, he can gain peace or war, and much more. Not a leader? How fucked up are your views of American government? Just because the President isn't the Absolute Sovereign he's a part of the sovereign, and he's 1/3, quite a large part. Still one of our LEADERS."

Fine, given, I played down the power of the presidential office. My bad, I stupidly overlooked many of his important jobs and authorities. But his position is still not a position in which he's gagged from responding to his own criticism. Nor does his position of power dictate that he must be listened to, which is the real point I was trying to make.

"yes, it has no mandate but it definitely has influence. and influence is all you need to gain an action, not a command. influence is power."

What's your point? No command has been made. His influence has not been used nor asserted. He stated an opinion, you're free to agree or disagree.

"who said war required group cohesion? Political parties use group cohesion all the time, they're goal is to win, and to win they must bring interest groups together, in what way? Group Cohesion."

War and only war requires group cohesion on the part of the POPULACE, the idea that the freedom of the nation must be limited and individuality squelched to accomplish a short-term task. That's what I was referring to by group cohesion, maybe I should have rephrased it as national cohesion.

The nation is an individual, it has no obligation to order or formation, it can do as it pleases. Including not even remotely caring about what the president says. That's the point of having a Republic, the law is the authority, not man.

And political parties are voluntary and participatory, they're no more group cohesion than a study group or a protest is. They're like minded individuals seeking a common end, which sometimes requires them to work together begrudgingly, but never to sacrifice individuality in the name of the organization.

"First, saying i need protection from someone seems to be the direct opposite of arrogance, as arrogance means "offensive display of superiority or self-importance; overbearing pride." Seems like an arrogant person would not admit he needs protection."

You're right, asking for protection is not arrogance.

But claiming you, as an individual, are being attacked when this is an issue that has nothing to do with you IS arrogance. Which is what you're doing.

"As for the outrageous claims, he's the president, he should expect this...Every other president dealt with them, why can't he?"

Then you haven't payed attention for very long about how "outrageous" claims are usually dealt with.

First off, nothing like the modern oppositional Fox news has existed for well over 90 years. No mainstream press has ever tried to actively sabotage a president for a very long time, which is what they're trying to do.

Second, where were you for the past 8 years? Talking shit about Bush got you cut out of the loop, military analysts were put into positions of news as "analysts." Fox used to call up the W.H. Press Secretary and ask for talking points to put on O'Reilly. And that's just then, don't get me started on Clinton.

I'll need another post to respond to your new point, so more to come.

oh one last thing Saladin, i had no room and forgot to mention this...

you need to move past your idea that the only views of the President come from a civilian, and liberal, stand point. Due to being in the US Army Obama is 100% my leader. In fact, if he were to say "go get me a cup of coffee" i would, by order of a commanding officer, have to go get him one. He's my military LEADER, just as a king would be.

The man is responding to a 24-hour oppositional propaganda fest against him, and being the president, he can say whatever the fuck he wants.

^ your first mistake...i'll use your argument if you want...he's a citizen, not something special (as you state below) then how can he say whatever the fuck he wants...oh that's right he cant. He can't slander, he can't speak out over a gag rule for trial, he can't speak of intelligence that he has on a security level WAY ABOVE that of a citizen, hmm...he actually can't say quite a lot. And another thing, he's PRESIDENT so he SHOULDNT say a lot of things, he needs to definitely censor himself as he is one of the most watched men in the world.

His word carries weight, but only a conservative dimwit would seriously think of the president as being your LEADER.

He's just the overseer of the executive branch! he's a CITIZEN, NOT a KING.

^ President not being a LEADER...just an overseer...Second mistake. Have you read the roles of the executive government? Here i'll post it for you...

[The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

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 President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session]

so...not a leader, just a citizen. hmm, he can order people to kill and to die, he can gain peace or war, and much more. Not a leader? How fucked up are your views of American government? Just because the President isn't the Absolute Sovereign he's a part of the sovereign, and he's 1/3, quite a large part. Still one of our LEADERS.

oh by the way, that's the CONSTITUTION posted above.

Agree or disagree, that's your right. But pretending like his word has any mandate is a disgusting form of military allegiance that is abhorrent to a Constitutional Democratic Republic.

And oh yes his word has no mandate...

yes, it has no mandate but it definitely has influence. and influence is all you need to gain an action, not a command. influence is power.

World War II is over, we are not in a state of total war. We DO NOT NEED "group cohesion."

^ who said war required group cohesion? Political parties use group cohesion all the time, they're goal is to win, and to win they must bring interest groups together, in what way? Group Cohesion.

He's not trying to "protect" you, how arrogant is that? He's defending himself from the outrageous claims that have been made against him.

^ First, saying i need protection from someone seems to be the direct opposite of arrogance, as arrogance means "offensive display of superiority or self-importance; overbearing pride." Seems like an arrogant person would not admit he needs protection. As for the outrageous claims, he's the president, he should expect this. Outrageous claims are part of the deal and always have been. Every other president dealt with them, why can't he? Turn the other cheek Obama.

And here we are again, back to the first amendment despite this having nothing to do with it.

No, you're utterly wrong. And your comparison to totalitarian brutality is especially disgusting.

The man is responding to a 24-hour oppositional propaganda fest against him, and being the president, he can say whatever the fuck he wants.

His word carries weight, but only a conservative dimwit would seriously think of the president as being your LEADER.

He's just the overseer of the executive branch! he's a CITIZEN, NOT a KING.

Agree or disagree, that's your right. But pretending like his word has any mandate is a disgusting form of military allegiance that is abhorrent to a Constitutional Democratic Republic.

And I know where it comes from, Karl Rove.

That oldddd diatribe about being "anti-American" for not supporting the President in whatever he did, unconditionally, regardless of how mind-numbingly stupid and painfully incompetent it was.

World War II is over, we are not in a state of total war. We DO NOT NEED "group cohesion."

Military allegiance and intellectual endeavors are POLAR opposites, and mixing them perverts allegiance and destroys intellect.

He's not trying to "protect" you, how arrogant is that? He's defending himself from the outrageous claims that have been made against him.

Fight the red herring, don't give into the same force that made our judgments fail again and again and again.

Move past Karl Rove, see the bullshit lies for what they really are.

Because believe it or not, Obama does need a lot of criticism, and these people at Fox news are purposefully drowning out what REALLY needs to be said, because they're fucking terrified of the retribution that he should be bringing to this nation.

Some of you act like he's just stating his opinion which is a major joke. He's the President of the United States, probably the most influential person in the world. He is not merely stating that he thinks their biased for shits and giggles, he's trying to turn people from them, trying to get people to boycott them for being biased. He's telling you what to do in a sense and if you don't see that then you're a little blinded. George Orwell's 1984, children weren't forced to tell on their parents, just told to by the man, what happened? They did. Ok that's fiction, real example : Hitler tells German residents to turn in Jewish neighbors, yea you can be punished for HIDING them but not if you just sit back and watch, what happened? many Germans turned them in. The leader of a nation has high influence among his people and when he takes a stance against a private news corporation just because 90% of the time they go against him he is letting his personal feelings get too much in the way of his job as our elected official. This war on fox he's pulling is making him look horribly in the face of the public, the President is not in office to influence how we think, merely to represent and act in the best interest of the common good. And another thing, our media should be watch-dogs for elected officials, not their friends. Yea i prefer UN-biased news, hell i check out foreign news more than our domestic ones, yet i don't believe the president should be making statements like this publicly.

The president is not some employee of MTV telling us what bands are good and what suck, or some talk show host explaining the recent sex scandals or lip syncing mistakes...he's an elected representative of the people and should act like one. There's no need for him to "protect" me from the biased news channel on TV, maybe he should be protecting me from the inflation of my money, the dropping chances of me finding a job, or the thousands out there that would love to see more graves in America.

Rupert Murdoch is the new William Randolph Hearst.

It would almost be hilarious how easily they can spin this into a first amendment issue if it weren't so sad.

If you think this is government tyranny out to get Fox news, you're a fucking moron.

Sorry to be so blunt, but it's the truth.

It's as dumb as buying into WMD or the dozen times a dozen right-wing agendas Fox has pushed on the nation since it decided to be the right's cheerleader.

Being critical of this administration 100% of the time is not "fair and balanced," it is the definition of bias. Especially when you realize that there is a stunning silence about covering the events that contradict their narrative.

If you don't realize that at this point, after 8 years of Bush and a blatant campaign to destroy Clinton before that, what can anyone say to you?

Because if that's where you stand, don't lie, you're in the tank for the GOP and the right-wing. Pretending like you're some honest, scared American looking out for their country is a cynical and disgusting falsehood. You're as partisan as they come. And that, by definition, is not "fair and balanced."

What's more, you KNOW this, but you pretend it's different anyway.

Hell yes, Obama and his Administration have the right to speak out against, a fake news organization......The National Enquirer has more credibility than Fox News..Their organization purposely distorts facts and create controversial stories to discredit Obama......Fox is tabloid entertainment, that attracts Jerry Springer type viewers, that can not distinguish between fact and fiction.....There isn't anything fair and balance about Fox News, and only the uninformed swear by that statement......

Obama's attack on the NAZI propaganda programing is another great move by a great american. Considering that they were all for the Bush regime taking away our constitutional rights (i.e. our first amendment rights...) he should just make them shut up and go away.

Doesnt the clown in charge have bigger issues to deal with than Fox News?

If he cant deal with Fox News, how will he deal with real issues?

Tough shit barry, if you think they are lying...prove them wrong with facts instead of trying to silence the opposition you punk bitch.

Added to DNC propaganda group for obvious reasons

People need to calm down. Obama isn't forcing "you" to do/watch/not watch anything. Nor ignoring people's rights. He's simply saying, publicly, that fox news is biased and their reports aren't always entirely true. It just shows he has balls, why? Cause people think he's doing something "radical" and "over the line" they'll bitch and say "OMG Freedom of speech! blah blah blah, he cannot tell me what I can and can't watch. They then go and turn fox news on, just to spite him, and realize what he's saying" He wins.

president can go anywhere in this country he wants to. he ought to cowboy up and march his butt right on in there. take on becky face 2 face

when they cant rebuke the facts, BO attacks. ....i know you are but what am i ? im rubber , your glue ! kinda childish gradeshool crap. the worst part about it is the more he attacks FAUX NEWS . the more people will believe whatever they are selling. becky comes on at 4

You can't go wrong with the truth after 8 years of idiocy and lies.

stupid move. Very stupid move. Reminds me of the sedition act move by Adams. Dumb.

I'm not even going to mention the validity of Fox's news, crazy or not it shouldn't be attacked ESPECIALLY by our own government. Don't you dare tell me what I can or cannot watch, what next, shutting down Colbert because his news isn't true enough? I have my right to watch and believe in what i want, my God this is scary to think that our government is going to attack a news station. What next, Muslims can't practice their religion cuz a few nuts take the Qur'an the wrong way, well sorry a few Americans cant seem to take news the right way or believe stuff that's absurd, this still is no means to attack a news group. Disgusting attack on personal freedoms in my opinion big mistake.

Ahh roflmaocopter

Are you people nuts? That's not rhetorical, thats a question, for you, to answer.

Let me quote a little thing called the basis for this country.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Note the press part, that would be fox. Note the freedom part, that would be that they are allowed to report as they wish.

You can shove the cable you use to watch CNN so far up your asshole that it comes out your nose and you loop it back down for another trip around.

Stop listening to big media period. Watch the BBC, read the both sides of the story, then come to a informed decision.

Blindly following the news is what got us into this mess (obamaramadingdong), and believing what the men in suits tell you (get the troops out ROFL, what a fucking piece of shit liar).

Absolutely not.

Fox is the only news organization presenting a balanced view of the news. The White HOuse is just pissed because Fox launches investigations into things the administration does not want to in the news because they may reflect negatively on the Kenyan. The tyranny being practiced by the Obama White HOuse and its "enemies list" (ironic that the lefts hero is a Nixon copier) is unbelievable. The hypocrisy of the left prevents it from being against this when their guy is in power. Obama is running a gangster government that is worse than any of his predesessors. It's only a matter of time before we are all required to sing, "Obama, Obama uber alles"

Yes...fox has mislead far to many Americans to act against their beliefs...which is tyranny...then they have the nerve to talk about indoctrination where do they think republicans come from....