About us Login Get email updates
County Fair
Print

CRUISE SHIP CONFESSION: Top Fox News Executive Admits Lying On-Air About Obama

March 29, 2011 8:03 am ET by Eric Hananoki

In newly uncovered audio, a Fox News executive boasts that he lied repeatedly during the closing days of the 2008 presidential campaign when he speculated on-air "about whether Barack Obama really advocated socialism."

Speaking in 2009 onboard a pricey Mediterranean cruise sponsored by a right-wing college, Fox Washington managing editor Bill Sammon described his attempts the previous year to link Obama to "socialism" as "mischievous speculation." Sammon, who is also a Fox News vice president, acknowledged that "privately" he had believed that the socialism allegation was "rather far-fetched."

"Last year, candidate Barack Obama stood on a sidewalk in Toledo, Ohio, and first let it slip to Joe the Plumber that he wanted to quote, 'spread the wealth around,' " said Sammon. "At that time, I have to admit, that I went on TV on Fox News and publicly engaged in what I guess was some rather mischievous speculation about whether Barack Obama really advocated socialism, a premise that privately I found rather far-fetched."

Indeed, in the weeks leading up to the 2008 election, Sammon used his Fox position to engage in a campaign to tie Obama to "Marxists" and "socialism." A Media Matters review found that Sammon - then the network's Washington deputy managing editor - repeatedly linked Obama's "spread the wealth around" remark to socialism during his October 2008 Fox appearances.

Sammon's "mischief" wasn't limited to his on-air appearances. As Media Matters reported, Sammon also pushed Fox News colleagues to play the socialism card. On October 27, 2008, Sammon sent an email to staffers highlighting what he described as "Obama's references to socialism, liberalism, Marxism and Marxists" in his 1995 autobiography Dreams From My Father. Shortly after sending the email, Sammon appeared on two Fox News programs to discuss his research and also wrote a FoxNews.com piece about Obama's "affinity to Marxists."

On October 14, 2008, Sammon said that Obama's "spread the wealth around" remark "is red meat when you're talking to conservatives and you start talking about 'spread the wealth around.' That is tantamount to socialism." 

Sammon repeated the "tantamount to socialism" line later that day, stating: "That's anathema to conservatives. That's the same as saying, 'Spread the misery around.' That's basically tantamount to socialism. And that bothers a lot of people. So I think if McCain is going to have any chance of moving ahead, he's got to turn this economic discussion from something that's been hurting him for the last couple weeks to something that can help him by focusing on what to do about the economy in the future." 

On October 21, 2008, Sammon appeared on Greta Van Susteren's show, where he referred to Bill Ayers "talking about being a Marxist." Sammon then said, "I have read Barack Obama's books pretty carefully, and he in his own words talks about being drawn to Marxists. ... Now all this stuff's coming out about whether he's a socialist. I don't know why anyone is surprised by it, because if you read his own words and his sort of, you know, orientation coming up as a liberal through college and as a young man, it's not a huge shock."

On October 25, 2008, Sammon said: "As soon as I heard Barack Obama say, and it's gone on almost two weeks ago - two weeks ago -- 'spread the wealth around,' I mean, the red flag went up. I mean, that's just code - and I knew that conservatives would say, 'That is exactly code for income redistribution which is tantamount to socialism.' And I talked about this for several days right after it happened. And the McCain campaign has now picked up this socialism word on their own, and they're running with it."

"I think some of these substantive issues, such as, you know, higher taxes, are we going to head more towards a socialistic government, could play in McCain's favor," Sammon said on October 27, 2008, after Fox aired a clip of Obama responding to McCain's accusations of socialism.

"I do think that when you start talking about 'spread the wealth around,' which is what Barack Obama said to Joe the Plumber, and now this new radio thing that came up today where he talks about redistributing the wealth, you know, those two things together are tantamount to socialism to conservatives," Sammon added later in the October 27 interview. "That's red meat. That'll fire up the conservative base, who had been a little bit dispirited."

Sammon went on to say that Obama "was drawn to Marxists, he was drawn to liberals, he was drawn to socialists by his own admission as a young man, so I think even though he postures as a moderate now as a presidential candidate, I think his heart is really towards the hard left, and we may see whether that comes out as he governs, if in fact he wins."

During an October 28, 2008, appearance on Fox & Friends, Sammon again said Obama "was drawn to Marxist and socialists as a young man" before adding, "Now, let's be clear. I mean people had political ideologies in college that they don't necessarily have later in life, but I do think it indicates that he may be a little bit more liberal than he presents himself."

Later in the interview, Sammon said that "there certainly is a consistency there when you look at the people he was drawn to going to socialist conferences, hanging out with Marxist professors, going to see Stokely Carmichael, even after he got out of college, for inspiration. The former Black Panther. And then you look later at life, where his association with Bill Ayers, the radical. You look at his association with the Reverend Wright. It does make you wonder whether indeed some of his leanings in his college days still carry through today, only are a little bit more fuzzed up because he's a politician who's running for high office. And I think it's worth examining."

Sammon made his startling admission during an August 2, 2009, speech onboard a 12-day cruise sponsored by Hillsdale College. Conservative writers Walter Williams, Paul Johnson, and Victor Davis Hanson also gave lectures. A Hillsdale newsletter states that "in addition to giving lectures, guest speakers also hosted private dinners for invited guests, and joined in the daytime excursions and camaraderie with their fellow 136 Hillsdale friends and nine Hillsdale staff."

A brochure for the cruise promised attendees a "great opportunity to gather and discuss history and ideas with noted scholars and like-minded friends of Hillsdale." Cabin rates ranged from $11,800 to $37,600 per couple.

The National Review has described Hillsdale as "a citadel of American conservatism," and the conservative Young America's Foundation has listed Hillsdale as one of the top conservative colleges in the country. Hillsdale President Larry Arnn, Sean Hannity, and Mark Levin have issued fundraising appeals touting the college's conservative credentials. Rush Limbaugh has also done on-air radio advertisements for Hillsdale.

During his cruise speech, Sammon said that while he found his own socialism speculation "far-fetched" in October 2008, it was actually proven correct during the first months of Obama's presidency.

"Now imagine my surprise when this year, I witness President Barack Obama standing in the cross hall of the White House and having taken over the American car industry, look into the camera, and announce to the nation essentially, that he would personally vouch for the warranty on your car's muffler," Sammon said on the cruise. "All of a sudden, the debate over whether America was heading for socialism seemed anything but far-fetched."

In a later portion of his speech, Sammon said:

Better yet, people are now surprised that we suddenly gotten serious about the debate over whether America is headed for socialism? I mean, come on. Americans were well aware all throughout the campaign that Barack Obama had chosen to spend 20 years of his adult life at a church that required its congregants to embrace economic parity and disavow the pursuit of middle-classness. OK? Barack Obama admitted that for much of his life he has been drawn to Marxists. I mean for crying out loud, he stood on that sidewalk in Toledo and said to Joe the Plumber, on camera, that he wanted to spread the wealth around. So there shouldn't be a lot of surprise here.

Media Matters obtained audio of Sammon's remarks by purchasing it through Hillsdale College.

Update: The Daily Beast's Howard Kurtz has a response from Sammon about his 2009 remarks:

In an interview, Sammon says his reference to "mischevious speculation" was "my probably inartful way of saying, 'Can you believe how far this thing has come?'" The socialism question indeed "struck me as a far-fetched idea" in 2008. "I considered it kind of a remarkable notion that we would even be having the conversation." He doesn't regret repeatedly raising it on the air because, Sammon says, "it was a main point of discussion on all the channels, in all the media"--and by 2009 he was "astonished by how the needle had moved."

Sammon notes that in the same talk on the cruise, he pointed out that George W. Bush had his own stimulus package and had spent half the TARP bailout money: "I was talking about both sides being big spenders." (True; he also told the cruise guests that "when it comes to spending money, Obama makes Bush look like a piker.")

From Sammon's August 2, 2009, Hillsdale College cruise speech:

SAMMON: It is so nice to be back with my Hillsdale friends again, although I have to say that when I arrived last week, the very first person I encountered was James Carville, my old friend James Carville -- made me wonder whether I had boarded the wrong boat. James assured me that he had not known in advance that this was going to be the Hillsdale cruise, which then made me wonder, I wonder if his lovely and talented wife Mary Matalin, who by the way published one of my books, and who affectionately refers to her husband as Serpenthead, I wondered whether Mary had mischievously arranged for James to come on this ship, maybe mingle with some of you Hillsdale people in hopes of saving his ideological soul. Mary, if you're out there, good luck with that one.

You know, speaking of mischief, last year, candidate Barack Obama stood on a sidewalk in Toledo, Ohio, and first let it slip to Joe the Plumber that he wanted to quote, "spread the wealth around." At that time, I have to admit, that I went on TV on Fox News and publicly engaged in what I guess was some rather mischievous speculation about whether Barack Obama really advocated socialism, a premise that privately I found rather far-fetched.

Now imagine my surprise when this year, I witness President Barack Obama standing in the cross hall of the White House and having taken over the American car industry, look into the camera, and announce to the nation essentially, that he would personally vouch for the warranty on your car's muffler. All of a sudden, the debate over whether America was heading for socialism seemed anything but far-fetched. In fact, when you consider the massive expenditures of your tax dollars on such programs as TARP, and stimulus, and in fairness, our pres -- our former president George W. Bush had his own stimulus package towards the end of his administration -- nobody remembers that -- and he also spent the first half of the TARP money.

So we went from a big government conservative to a big government liberal. Although I will say that when it comes to spending money, Obama makes Bush look like a piker. When you consider that those expenditures of money by this administration, which by the way will quadruple the deficit from this year to next year, for the next fiscal year, starts October 1, the deficit will quadruple and when you consider the sweeping expansion of government regulation over such sectors as the finance industry including caps on executive compensation. When you consider the Obama administration's concerted effort to nationalize health care, which of course accounts for a sixth of our economy, and when you consider the Obama administration's concerted effort to impose a cap and trade regime which will profoundly reorder the rest of our economy and mandate massive transfers of wealth. When you consider all of those things and more like them, the debate over whether America is headed for socialism seems all too real, especially to those who still believe in capitalism.

And consider this final thought. When it comes to government spending as a percentage of gross domestic product, the United States has now surpassed Sweden.

[...]

SAMMON: In 2008, obviously, he was elected the nation's first black president, a historic achievement. But did so in part by presenting himself as a moderate. In 2009, at least during the first six months of his term, he has instead demonstrated that he is actually quite liberal, quite an ideologue, and quite an ambitious leftist.

Oh, yeah, I mean he made a few overtures to the political opposition. He, you know, had an off-the-record dinner with Charles Krauthammer and some other conservative columnists. He invited a few Republican lawmakers over to the White House for some social events, but you know, those invitations have been quietly discontinued. You don't hear much about that anymore. And the truth of the matter is that the golden era of post-partisanship that Barack Obama was supposed to usher in really ended before it ever started.

And the only thing that should surprise us about that is that we are surprised at all. I mean, it's not like America couldn't see this one coming. Remember, Barack Obama, long before he was elected president, was ranked the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate by the National Journal, a non-partisan magazine. He was given a 95 percent liberal rating by the left-wing group Americans for Democratic Reform. He was on record in his own memoirs as saying, quote, "the arguments of liberals are more often grounded in reason and fact," end quote. And now people are surprised that he's turned out to be a liberal president?

Better yet, people are now surprised that we suddenly gotten serious about the debate over whether America is headed for socialism? I mean, come on. Americans were well aware all throughout the campaign that Barack Obama had chosen to spend 20 years of his adult life at a church that required its congregants to embrace economic parity and disavow the pursuit of middle-classness. OK? Barack Obama admitted that for much of his life he has been drawn to Marxists. I mean for crying out loud, he stood on that sidewalk in Toledo and said to Joe the Plumber, on camera, that he wanted to spread the wealth around. So there shouldn't be a lot of surprise here.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by GreenLantern (March 29, 2011 8:09 am ET)
      44 3
      Just a confession about what everyone with a brain already knows!
      Report Abuse
      • Author by progressivevoicedaily (March 29, 2011 10:13 am ET)
        34 6
        Look at all the right wing tools scrambling to defend this. Mags, ColoradoSpringsFascist, seaturd, they'll all be out in full force trying to walk this one back. How does it feel to know now that you were led of the crazy plank?? THEY USE YOU LIKE PAWNS IN A POLITICAL GAME OF CHESS. Their only motivation is to put more wealth in their offshore bank accounts. The T-baggers are really taking it like the name suggests, and it's not from the left, it's being done from the right!
        Report Abuse
        • Author by mari2jj (April 01, 2011 3:51 am ET)
          4  
          In spite of Sammon's attempt to upgrade his LIE, he lied and he has no credibility. I shall never again believe a word he says. He is NO newsman in any shape or form. He is a liar. It is amazing also that he tries to nice up his racist swill by discussing this topic. Sammon did a nasty, racist, disgusting amoral thing and no amount of his feeble attempt to try to "nice it up" is going to work. But I notice that he is still on Fox news. It is no wonder that folks like Brit Hume, who used to have great integrity, has had to sell his soul to the racist swill running Fox. But in the end, God has a way of dealing with bigots like this. And having the reputation of manipulating facts leaves this guy with no moral rudder whatsoever. He deserves our pity. He has sold his soul to the Devil.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by dhertzfe (March 29, 2011 11:19 am ET)
        28 2
        Yes, but look this one person has divided a nation by spreading lies that confirmed what people on the right wanted to believe.

        The congress and the senate on the right are against EVERYTHING this president is trying to accomplish. Imagine how much better the health care reform would be. Imagine how quickly this country would be back to work.

        It's sickening to see what this media outlet has done to this country in three years.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by wizbing (March 29, 2011 1:08 pm ET)
        17  
        For me the key word is "mischievous". Journalists often speculate and they shouldn't, but this is a case of a pseudo-journalist using phony speculation to attack political targets. The word mischievous proves his bad faith and shows he has a political agenda, which he advances using dishonest methods. He is a political agent posing as a journalist. The airways have become thoroughly polluted with this fake journalism and it is weakening the public's faith in the news media, which is another thing the right wants.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by News Corpse (March 29, 2011 1:30 pm ET)
          16  
          "...it is weakening the public's faith in the news media, which is another thing the right wants."

          That is so true. It is an argument that I made a couple of years ago - that the mission of Fox News was to tarnish the reputation of the press more broadly so that people wouldn't believe any of it. They perceived that as an effective way of dumbing-down the population so that they could advance their lies: "Rather than try to change people's minds, they would endeavor to poison the relationship that people have with the press."

          As for Sammon, he has always been a devout right-winger who wrote brazenly partisan books like these:
          [
          b]The Evangelical President:[/b] George Bush’s Struggle to Spread a Moral Democracy Throughout the World
          At Any Cost: How Al Gore Tried to Steal the Election
          Strategery: How George W. Bush Is Defeating Terrorists, Outwitting Democrats, and Confounding the Mainstream Media.
          Fighting Back: The War on Terrorism from Inside the White House
          Misunderestimated: The President Battles Terrorism, Media Bias and the Bush Haters
          But seriously, what should we expect from this hack? Before his stint with Fox, he was the White House correspondent for the Moonie Washington Times. And this is the resume of a fair and balanced journalist?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by mari2jj (March 30, 2011 8:09 pm ET)
            3  
            And now we are battling the News Mogul's lies. Everything this guy ever said is now suspect. No one just lies once. They are a LIAR! Truth means nothing to them. I used to listen to Fox to get the other point of view but now I see all I heard were lies. As a Republican, I wonder if our party can ever live down our dance with this devil?
            Report Abuse
      • Author by theegrobe (March 30, 2011 9:16 am ET)
        4  
        hey gl,
        about a month ago i posted a reply on something you had said and i think i missed in my attempt to show what a green lantern fan i am.
        i thought anyone could quote the green lantern oath, so i wanted to go for an obscure reference to it.
        what could be more obscure than referencing a duck rogers episode, where duck temporarily becomes a green lantern, and ad libs the oath.
        so , you see? i was giving you a nod to your handle, that i felt a green lantern fan would get.
        what i didn't realize was, that with all the interstellar crime fighting ,some green lanterns can get a little thin skinned.
        sorry
        Report Abuse
      • Author by mari2jj (March 30, 2011 8:05 pm ET)
        3  
        Right! One wonders why he ever bothered with this "confession". We have all known that if Sammon's lips are moving he is no doubt lying. And he certainly sets the moral tone for all of the Fox News people. Just lie and then giggle a little. Truth is no prized possession at that news organization and now the head man finally confessed to the factual nature of "lying is just fine here at Fox". One wonders how some honest people at Fox feel. They may be ideologues but I cannot say they condone lies. But who knows. Surely folks there can read up on issues to get the truth instead of spouting all their lies.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by IRONY 101 (March 29, 2011 8:19 am ET)
        62 6
        Sammons admits to advancing a premise that he didn't believe was true.

        Try reading before typing...
        Report Abuse
        • Author by MagCynic (March 29, 2011 8:25 am ET)
          5 67
          No, he said it sounded a little far-fetched to him, not that it was patently false. And he was merely speculating, not stating outright as fact. Why don't you read what he actually said?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by IRONY 101 (March 29, 2011 8:40 am ET)
            45 3
            Do you use a microscope to split those hairs?
            Report Abuse
            • Author by wizbing (March 29, 2011 4:01 pm ET)
              10  
              And he was merely speculating, not stating outright as fact.


              Wrong. Sammon said "That is tantamount to socialism." It is not presented as speculation, it is a straight factual statement. Speculation would be "I think he might be a closet socialist." Such phony speculation would be a smear or inuendo rather than a lie. Sammon is stating his self-admitted far-fetched speculation as the truth. He is misrepresenting what he knows, and he is doing it to further his career in the phony right-wing news business.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by wizbing (March 29, 2011 4:14 pm ET)
                6  
                He later said to the cruise-ship audience that it was speculation. The original on-air statements were not framed that way, so they were lies.
                Report Abuse
          • Author by bintx (March 29, 2011 9:20 am ET)
            40 5
            far-fetched: Not readily believable because of improbable elements therein


            Reaching there, Mag. Really, give it up. Sammons was lying and he knew he was lying. He admitted it in the tape.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by blurider (March 30, 2011 9:24 am ET)
              6  
              @MagCynic,
              Stop being an idiot, troll - NOW!
              He not only admitted to distorting the reality,his 'confession' was more an act of braggadocio. He and his audience all thought it was cute and clever.

              He's not merely a reporter he is an executive editor and he went on to use his position at Fox to influence his colleagues to further distort and repeat the story and it went viral, even repeated without critical analysis in the mainstream media! Go ahead, keep trying to explain how that's not lying!

              He didn't say anything disparaging about the Fox audience - which was very thoughtful of him, given that some 99% of them now, believe it's THE LITERAL TRUTH!

              Of course, privately he files his true belief that his viewers are mostly thoughtless, uncritical idiots with IQ's to match their shoe sizes, right alongside his true belief that Obama isn't a socialist.
              Report Abuse
          • Author by Egbert Souse (March 29, 2011 9:54 am ET)
            25  
            Collins Beginner's Dictionary
            far-fetched
            If you describe a story or idea as far-fetched, you are criticizing it because you think it is unlikely to be true or practical. adj

            Report Abuse
            • Author by Andy Kreiss (March 29, 2011 10:57 am ET)
              19  
              Nice try, Egbert, but you may have to find a level below "beginner" for it to sink in. Anything with big colorful pictures ?
              Report Abuse
              • Author by Bronwyn (March 29, 2011 1:05 pm ET)
                10  
                LOL. Andy did you quit your new job already? That job you took of educating the troll wasn't union was it?
                Report Abuse
                • Author by Andy Kreiss (March 29, 2011 6:19 pm ET)
                  8  
                  I don't think I ever claimed I was going to educate any trolls. All I can do is offer them some help, I can't make them think.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by juliajayne1 (March 29, 2011 6:33 pm ET)
                    8 1
                    Yes Andy, you can lead a hate horse to intellectual water, but...ha!
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by kabniel (March 29, 2011 7:06 pm ET)
                      7  
                      Yes julia. You can lead a troll to information but his abilty to understand basic reality is often non-existant
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by Andy Kreiss (March 29, 2011 7:19 pm ET)
                        8  
                        We've got Beavis and Butthead running the two-man Fail-sled team on this thread. Maybe Mag can team up with ak and 1mg as the Three Duh-Sketeers.
                        Report Abuse
                  • Author by Bronwyn (March 29, 2011 8:16 pm ET)
                    5  
                    I was teasing you about your post awhile back, under the blog, where you said it was your job, and you were loving your new job. I don't remember which thread or which idiot it was you were educating, but your post was really funny.

                    I posted at the time that it would make an old man of you.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by Bronwyn (March 29, 2011 8:49 pm ET)
                      5  
                      3/9/11 Blog Huckabee Challenged by............
                      But I'm pretty excited about my new job! You're all on notice.

                      Sorry I crash when I try to insert the link.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by Andy Kreiss (March 30, 2011 1:50 am ET)
                        7 2
                        Hahaha, I forgot about that, it was jake-something ( who must have gone really dumb, as his posts are all scrubbed) who appointed me Website moderator because I politely suggested he try to understand the topic before commenting. These wingnuts are the most ungrateful bunch of humanoids I've ever met, you try to help them avoid looking stupid, and they try to bite your hand.

                        BTW, I wish people wouldn't flag those idiots, I like the stoopid to be on record. It also makes old threads hard to follow, and gives the whiner wingnuts a chance to scream that their "opposing views are being censored", when they're just deleted for being boring and stupid.

                        In case you care, I have another job here. Onementalgiant ( one of the volunteer pinatas on this thread) appointed me "Definition Czar" or something like that, because I had the nerve to think that there are objective truths, and lies, in the world. He seems to rely on a magical world where fact and fiction are just different opinions, and he can't function if that's pointed out as a lie.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by Bronwyn (March 30, 2011 3:46 am ET)
                          5  
                          I've gotten quite an education from you well informed posters setting the trolls straight. And just maybe you will get through to one of them. But for sure they should be indebted to all of you for your efforts.

                          This is my favorite site because there are some really amazingly intelligent and humorous folks on here.

                          Every time you address 1mg, I think, nope not even 1mg of common sense with that one.
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by Andy Kreiss (March 30, 2011 11:53 am ET)
                            6 2
                            I know what you mean, after straight news sites, this site is one I go to to get a bead on what's going on in the realm of media and politics. I've learned quite a bit from the posters here, and had a lot of good laughs.

                            But I also like this site for the wingnuts. I'm not a real geek about the nuts and bolts and details of politics, I'm way more fascinated by the psychology of it. It's the same thing that causes my interest in advertising and marketing, the way seemingly average people will act irrationally, almost psychotically, to believe what they want to believe.

                            And the trend I've seen in my adult life is the right wing in America being driven more and more by 100% emotion. The extreme Foxbot types will twist reality beyond recognition to protect their feelings ( pretty well demonstrated in this thread, as well as most of them here).

                            That's another reason I'm sort of disappointed when the trolls get flagged, and their posts are removed. I understand it, they can be pretty boring, and have trouble following the topic, but I like when their posts stay here.

                            Not just for the unintentional comedy, but as evidence that the bargain-basement propaganda documented here, the stuff that we look at and ask " Can anybody actually buy this pablum?", is actually effective on some of our fellow Americans.

                            I've been to sites where the wingnuts are booted, or maybe they just don't post there, and there's good intelligent conversation going on, but it creates the false impression that everybody's up to speed in the country. I like to see the crazy.
                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by CoolSlaw (March 30, 2011 1:51 pm ET)
                              6 1
                              I'm with you on this point 100% Andy. I'm interested in the psychology and thought process going on with politics in this country. We can see the trickle down of paranoia, hate, lies, and misinformation at work here. I also confess to feeling good about being on the side that comes with facts and reason. It's a confirmation of how I feel and what I know to be opposed and debate with people who have little in the way of facts and must resort to trickery and logical fallacies.
                              Report Abuse
                              • Author by Andy Kreiss (March 30, 2011 7:42 pm ET)
                                3 1
                                Sometimes I wish there was an option to go off on separate threads here, where posters could start a new topic without cluttering up the original item. I'm always interested in what got people interested in politics in the first place.

                                Obviously, anybody who posts here has an interest, more than the apathetic general public, but I wonder about why. Some are detail-oriented policy wonks, others ( like us, I guess) are about the Human Behavior end of it.

                                That would be cool, to have a private chat group feature, where people could have a wingnut-free discussion, then come back to the public threads for the laughs.
                                Report Abuse
                                • Author by Bronwyn (March 30, 2011 9:16 pm ET)
                                  4 1
                                  Today I found a perfect example of what you have been describing, a thread with really great posts, but every single troll post had been removed. So it appeared as if the posters were debating with themselves. It would have been really nice to have read the trolls point of view. Regardless how limited that maybe, I like to know where they are coming from.
                                  I also like it when we get a bit of personal glimpse of our regular posters. I find it easy to get "attached" (wrong word) to favorite or respected posters.

                                  I think there are only a few posters that are sticklers for staying on topic. I really liked or respected Dell Dolly's posts, except when she would rant on and on about not feeding the trolls. Some of those posts were the most educational. Not to mention very funny. And who doesn't need a laugh in the middle of all the drama? Right, Dude?
                                  Report Abuse
                                  • Author by Andy Kreiss (March 31, 2011 2:05 am ET)
                                    4 1
                                    I have mixed feelings. I personally never flag the trolls, but I understand those who do. They can be pretty boring, and they don't really add anything.

                                    I think two of them, onementaldefect and crackmikeus got a few posts scrubbed here, but that was long after they gave up on trying to make sense, and just started stroking each other and posting insults that most grade school kids would have demanded a re-write on.
                                    Report Abuse
          • Author by jonimacaroni1 (March 29, 2011 10:30 am ET)
            9 1
            It is patently false though. That's the point. Sammon didn't have to believe that it was true!
            Report Abuse
          • Author by takemycountryback (March 29, 2011 11:07 am ET)
            10 1
            MagCynic, you are truly a numbskull willing to believe the narrative that suits you. If you were truly a cynic, as your name implies, you would be willing to read between the lines. Maybe you need to consider changing your name to MagIronic.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by takemycountryback (March 29, 2011 11:09 am ET)
            11 1
            MagIronic, as I will now refer to you....

            I changed the headline to better suit your needs:
            CRUISE SHIP CONFESSION: Top White House Cabinet Member Admits Lying On-Air About George Bush.

            Ok. MagIronic...Get the noose ready.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by dkylep (March 29, 2011 12:19 pm ET)
            10  
            What a giant surprise! One liar defending another!
            Report Abuse
      • Author by bodhi057 (March 29, 2011 8:22 am ET)
        48 1
        Here it is a third time:

        "At that time, I have to admit, that I went on TV on Fox News and publicly engaged in what I guess was some rather mischievous speculation about whether Barack Obama really advocated socialism, a premise that privately I found rather far-fetched."

        Translattion: I figured it was bullsh!t, but since it would probably help McCain, I ran with it anyway.

        Fine journalistic integrity, eh?
        Report Abuse
          • Author by bodhi057 (March 29, 2011 8:38 am ET)
            39  
            *face palm*

            Not when you think your speculations have no merit. Although it doesn't surprise me that we would have different definitions of what constitutes dishonesty.

            ...END OF LINE...
            Report Abuse
          • Author by Mikeystyle (March 29, 2011 8:39 am ET)
            37 1
            I "speculate" that every one of the prospective Republican presidential candidates is a cyborg from Mars trying to take over the U.S. and then the world.

            I know it's B.S. but I'm going to go on the air and say it anyway. Then I'm going to to what he did and tell everyone under me to push the same B.S. line that I myself don't believe.

            This guy is supposed to be an unbiased news executive, in reality he's a Republican political operative. He's Karl Rove with a network.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by tspang (March 29, 2011 8:48 am ET)
            30  
            Mag, don't you think that's a bit disingenuous?

            Sammon's speculation was not on par with wondering aloud about what's going to happen in Libya (if it were, why would he describe it as "mischievous"?)

            It was clearly designed to help McCain and hurt Obama, which matches his established pattern of using his VP of "News" position to help Republicans by pushing certain talking points. Remember the emails about the public option and climate change?
            Report Abuse
            • Author by cripto9t709 (March 29, 2011 8:56 am ET)
              16 1
              Patriots leave big words like "mischievous" out, they're confusing.

              Simple sentences are the key to communication with them.

              I'm sure everything you wrote flew right over the patriots head.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by Andy Kreiss (March 29, 2011 11:08 am ET)
              14 1
              That looks like a lot of work, focusing on "speculation" while very deliberately avoiding the word "mischievous"

              mis·chie·vous
                 /ˈmɪstʃəvəs/ Show Spelled[mis-chuh-vuhs] Show IPA
              –adjective
              1.
              maliciously or playfully annoying.
              2.
              causing annoyance, harm, or trouble.
              3.
              roguishly or slyly teasing, as a glance.
              4.
              harmful or injurious. .


              I think we can rule out the more "playful" definitions of the word,a word that Sammon chose in the first place as a euphemism for "bullsh*t".
              Report Abuse
          • Author by watershed (March 29, 2011 8:49 am ET)
            19 1
            You don't even know what "speculate" means. Why even speak?
            Report Abuse
          • Author by bintx (March 29, 2011 9:21 am ET)
            12 4
            far-fetched: Not readily believable because of improbable elements therein
            Report Abuse
          • Author by bintx (March 29, 2011 9:23 am ET)
            13 4
            speculate: to believe especially on uncertain or tentative grounds


            Not the same thing as far-fetched, Mag.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by wesley_fpt (March 29, 2011 9:31 am ET)
            22 1
            Can we believe MagCynic is really this big a moron? YES WE CAN! YES WE CAN!
            Report Abuse
          • Author by Egbert Souse (March 29, 2011 9:45 am ET)
            9  
            far fetched
            Main Entry: doubtful
            Part of Speech: adjective
            Definition: questionable, unclear
            Synonyms: ambiguous, borderline, chancy, clouded, contingent, debatable, dicey, disreputable, doubtable, dubious, dubitable, equivocal, far-fetched, fat chance, fishy, hazardous, hazy, iffy, impugnable, inconclusive, indecisive, indefinite, indeterminate, indistinct, insecure, long shot, obscure, on thin ice, open, pending, precarious, problematic, shady, sneaky, speculative, suspect, suspicious, touch-and-go, touchy, uncertain, unconfirmed, undecided
            Report Abuse
            • Author by MagCynic (March 29, 2011 9:51 am ET)
              5 48
              And this is assuming you even believe it was a far-fetched claim to say Obama is a socialist/Marxist. I don't believe that's far-fetched at all.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by bintx (March 29, 2011 10:04 am ET)
                28 3
                Yeah, but you also think that Glenn Beck is "entertaining" and has "interesting and important" things to say. Not someone whose opinion I'd hang my hat.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by pecst1 (March 29, 2011 10:10 am ET)
                16  
                Did you miss the word mischievous?
                Report Abuse
              • Author by pecst1 (March 29, 2011 10:10 am ET)
                7  
                Did you miss the word mischievous?
                Report Abuse
              • Author by Egbert Souse (March 29, 2011 10:11 am ET)
                8  
                Merriam-Webster's
                far fetched
                Synonyms: doubtful, dubious, far-fetched, flimsy, questionable, unapt, unlikely

                The term far-fetched and its manifestations are also discussed here.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by tspang (March 29, 2011 10:14 am ET)
                18  
                Mag, it doesn't matter whether you or I think it's far-fetched or not.

                What DOES matter is that Sammon thought it WAS far-fetched, yet advanced the premise all the same.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by sanoyes (March 29, 2011 10:29 am ET)
                  16 1
                  Bingo!!!! And Mag will simply be blind to what you said. Because he disagrees with that premise. Sort of like Palestine refuses to agree to Israel's existance. It's stance you cannot change, no matter how many times you show Mag. He can't see it.
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by Andy Kreiss (March 29, 2011 11:12 am ET)
                  21 1
                  Exactly, Mission Accomplished for Sammon. He told MagCynic that Obama is a socialist, and Mag believed him, even though Sammon didn't believe himself.

                  Mag has now seen Sammon admits that he lied to Mag, but Mag has already decided he believed the lie, and he's "stayin' the course". This is your Fox audience in a nutshell.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by jaguarundi (March 29, 2011 1:57 pm ET)
                    13 1
                    This is textbook definition of Right Wing Authoritarian. They have to deal with self-image destroying contradictions on a daily basis and develop a large repertoire of survival skills to cope with that fact. For him/her to parse his statements to this extent shows exactly how far they are willing to stretch to reconcile the disparities of the core beliefs.
                    The only experts with dealing with hard core RWAs are professional deprogrammers who usually work with cult members. I wonder why?
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by Andy Kreiss (March 29, 2011 6:24 pm ET)
                      7  
                      That's what's fascinating about them. Check out onementalgiant on this thread, his MO is pretty consistent; he shows up throwing around insults and name-calling, usually peppered with some lies, and always gets his azz handed to him.

                      Instead of re-thinking his positions, he starts whining that everybody who tries to straighten him out is an "egomaniac".

                      They need to live in a fantasy world.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by barscotch9441 (March 31, 2011 9:58 am ET)
                        2  
                        Well, we all know that reality isn't objective...it's whatever the conservative in charge says it is.
                        Report Abuse
              • Author by takemycountryback (March 29, 2011 11:15 am ET)
                10  
                MagIronic, tell us something that the teevee machine has not already told you to believe about anything. Can you? I bet you would never have pegged Obama for anything had the voices in your teevee told you it was so. Make up your own mind and then enlighten us.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by CoolSlaw (March 29, 2011 11:44 am ET)
                14 1
                And this is assuming you even believe it was a far-fetched claim to say Obama is a socialist/Marxist. I don't believe that's far-fetched at all.


                That's because you only watch and listen to right wing media. President Obama has been very good to wealth and capitalism. It doesn't matter what you "think" or what a propaganda network disseminates. What matters is the record, and President Obama, is not even close to being socialist.

                Does a socialist cut historically low taxes even lower?

                Would a socialist extend the Bush tax cuts?

                Would a socialist have pumped money into the banking system?

                Don't you think a socialist would have fought for single payer health care, rather then taking it off the table as his opening compromise for the health insurance reform legislation?

                Would a socialist have appointed Ben Vernaky? Tim Geitner? Would a socialist put such staunch corporate defenders in charge of his economic policy?

                Nothing even remotely socialist is going on in America. It's really quite pitiful how right wing media followers have insulated themselves from the simple unbiased reality of what's going on.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by progusa (March 29, 2011 1:30 pm ET)
                12 1
                Magmoron: "And this is assuming you even believe it was a far-fetched claim to say Obama is a socialist/Marxist. I don't believe that's far-fetched at all."

                If it wasn't for Fox News, no one would think Obama is a socialist/marxist. How did that baseless assertion (aka lie) begin? Could it have been a bit of far-fetched speculation that made it into the narrative of just about every opinionator and alleged "hard news" program on Fox News?

                The truth is, if you look at what Obama has done, he is moderate, even a little right of center. Fox News has distorted the liberal - conservative continuum to the point where people who only watch Fox News think anyone who leans toward the center right is a flaming liberal. Of course they had to do that because that's where Obama is.


                Report Abuse
                • Author by jaguarundi (March 29, 2011 2:02 pm ET)
                  11  
                  They also scream that ALL the media is liberal.
                  When compared to the Reactionary News Network (FOX), anything else IS liberal; it is a perception issue. They have just redefined where the center is - about one micrometer from the extreme right wall.
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by treming (March 29, 2011 4:28 pm ET)
                  6  
                  Exactly. Anyone who has even the vaguest suspicion that there is anything going on in the Obama administration that is socialist, just go see "Inside Job." That will put an end to any such delusions.
                  Report Abuse
              • Author by indictgwbush (March 29, 2011 2:15 pm ET)
                6 1
                Ooooooooooh SOCIALISM; scary word; if you're a thieving corporate scumbag; or an insanely rich piece of human excrement who doesn't want to pay his FAIR SHARE of taxes!
                Report Abuse
              • Author by kabniel (March 29, 2011 7:09 pm ET)
                7  
                Mag

                Because you are a LIAR. You are also a MORON but anyone who knows what the word socialist or Marxist means, knows it doesnt apply to Obama in ANY way. You are just a LIAR. You get sheer joy from telling constant lies
                Report Abuse
              • Author by dommanno3075 (March 30, 2011 12:07 pm ET)
                4  
                And this is assuming you even believe it was a far-fetched claim to say Obama is a socialist/Marxist. I don't believe that's far-fetched at all.
                And all you've proved is that you don't know the meaning of the word "socialist" or "Marxist." A true socialist would have nationalized the banks, not bailed them out. A true socialist wouldn't have caved on repealing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. A true socialist would have pushed for single-payer health care, not the pro-capitalist plan he finally compromised on.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by mescal (March 29, 2011 6:16 pm ET)
                6  
                In your desperation, Fauxliberal, you've gone beyond ridiculous.

                And speaking of lying, when are you going to apologize for falsely calling Shirley Sherrod a racist?
                Report Abuse
                • Author by Andy Kreiss (March 29, 2011 6:26 pm ET)
                  7 1
                  I sometimes wonder how much time the wingnuts spend coming up with these pathetic and flawed little " if/then" arguments. I picture a chalkboard all filled up with gibberish and spittle.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by CoolSlaw (March 29, 2011 7:32 pm ET)
                    7  
                    On those chalkboards, they use the "right wing sliding scale of justice" to make their final calculations.

                    Remember, if any liberal, at any level of significance and party involvement from a random, anonymous blogger to the President himself makes any statement that they consider implausible, it has more negative weight then any number of flawed or deliberately misleading statements made by the entire right wing media and political machine retroactively and into perpetuity.

                    This is part of the compartmentalization process so frequently displayed by right wing media cult followers. This is how they can justify defending people who lie to them even after they've been caught. Case in point: this article and the responses.

                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by Andy Kreiss (March 29, 2011 7:53 pm ET)
                      7  
                      I always get a good laugh, picturing them hitting "save" as they lean back with a smug "gotcha!" look on their face, imagining they've come up with some brilliant game-changer.

                      What did Krugman speculate on ? Some deranged, gun-crazy, anti-government loner who shot a democratic pol may have been influenced by the deranged, gun-crazy, anti-government "individualists" who work full-time at demonizing Democrats? I'm sorry, I just can't see the connection.

                      Sammon promotes the idea that a moderate, centrist is a socialist, and later uses the euphemism "speculates" while admitting that there was no credibility to his (admittedly) agenda-driven campaign. And the wingnuts are buying what he originally said, even after he;s admitted to lying.

                      On another note, compare this to the dan rather deal with the TANG documents ( Rathergate, for you wingnuts). Rather lost his job for not properly vetting a document, the nutters are still obsessing over this years later, and they regularly, and incorrectly, refer to the document as "forged".

                      Their hypoctisy is almost admirable in its ballsiness.
                      Report Abuse
              • Author by kabniel (March 29, 2011 7:11 pm ET)
                5  
                alwaysstupid

                God but you are pathetic. Keep shovelling your pathetic lies. You are hiliarous.
                Report Abuse
          • Author by ccreadme (March 29, 2011 11:00 am ET)
            13 1
            Mag,
            The point you should take from the article, which is quite clear, is that FoxNews coordinated an effort to smear then-candidate Obama. That is an unethical thing to do for a "straight news" guy.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by takemycountryback (March 29, 2011 11:12 am ET)
            4  
            Hey MagIronic, I speculate that you are dense. Is that really far-fetched? Now there is no way to prove my theory, but I am saying it anyway. Oh and Bill Ayers wrote Obama's autobiography, right?
            Report Abuse
            • Author by MiniTru (March 29, 2011 2:07 pm ET)
              6  
              Oh and Bill Ayers wrote Obama's autobiography, right?
              Has the Trogressive-Right ever gotten the point that if Bill Ayres wrote it, it couldn't have been Obama's autobiography?
              Report Abuse
          • Author by kabniel (March 29, 2011 7:07 pm ET)
            6 1
            Mag. I know you are stupid but in this case you are a LIAR. He was speculating by stating AS FACT something he did not believe to be true. In other words, like you, he is a LIAR
            Report Abuse
          • Author by CoolSlaw (March 29, 2011 7:20 pm ET)
            7 1
            He speculated on something he found far-fetched. That's not at all the same thing as admitting to lying on the air. People speculate on things ALL THE TIME.


            Add the inability to grasp appropriateness and sense of proportion to the list of things right wingers are lacking -at least when defending the people who lie to them. Put it right up there with inability to understand nuance, irony and sarcasm.

            What gets me is that Sammon himself claims he didn't really believe it, and these right wingers are ready to come here and defend the smug hack who lied to THEM.

            Magcynic? Nope. Mag-sycophant? Absolutely.

            Magsycophant, since you're so concerned with definitions, look up sycophant, and tell me how that doesn't describe your defense of Sammon precisely.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by SvenBoogie (March 30, 2011 4:06 pm ET)
            1  
            Flagged for trolling.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by ScienceBuff (March 29, 2011 8:47 am ET)
        30  
        Look at the list of statements Sammon made on the air. He may have described them on the cruise ship as speculation, but he didn't actually present them that way. He made straight-out assertions that Obama was socialist. The cruise ship statement simply shows that when he made those assertions he considered them to be far-fetched, but he made them anyway. That is lying, plain and simple. The cruise ship statements very definitely expose those assertions as the lies they were.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by ccreadme (March 29, 2011 11:32 am ET)
          9  
          Agreed.
          The most literal definition is that is a lie.
          The admission is that they don't report the news, they try to mold it.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by irishbybirthmunsterbygraceofgod (March 29, 2011 2:23 pm ET)
        5  
        im sure u wont care but here you go far-fetched (färfcht)
        adj.
        Not readily believable because of improbable elements therein:
        Report Abuse
      • Author by sociocrat (March 29, 2011 3:36 pm ET)
        10 2
        Mag,
        How does it feel to be that stupid? Does it hurt? Does it feel good? Are you mentally impaired? When you advance a story that you believe to be "...a premise that privately I found rather far-fetched."", that is tantamount to lying. If you advance a story with which you have no facts, and you know this, then this lying. Mag, you are just P.O.ed that your boy got busted. You are just angry because there is one more piece of evidence that Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox Lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies!



        Report Abuse
      • Author by Badtime (March 29, 2011 5:25 pm ET)
        7  
        I believe that you are a serial killer. I know that it is rather far fetched and I don't have any evidence to support my claim. I am just going to go ahead and make the claim anyways.

        That would make me a liar, wouldn't it?

        Just because he didn't come out and say "hey, look, I lied" doesn't mean he didn't.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by kabniel (March 29, 2011 7:04 pm ET)
        5  
        Mag

        GOD but you are pathetic. You are also a LIAR. He admitted to repeatedly saying something he found far fetched by any rational defintion of the word that means he LIED. He knowingly gave information he didnt believe to be true. How pathetic are you trying to be anyway?
        Report Abuse
      • Author by beulahmo (March 30, 2011 5:01 pm ET)
        3  
        The guy's position within Fox News is crucial here. He used his position to shape a narrative in the news. His statements here, along with prior revelations about his directions to news staff to use specific, market-tested verbiage in order to influence the tone of news reports, demonstrate a clear effort on his part to drive a partisan political agenda. In the news and information business, it really IS behavior that deserves strong rebuke. For people who don't willingly consume right-wing propaganda, this is a betrayal of trust.

        [At this point, let me say that I understand that approximately 20% of American adults (you appear to be in that group) actually prefer to consume stories presented by participants in the right-wing propaganda community, and that's fine, as far as I'm concerned. I'm no fan of Rush Limbaugh, but at least he is forthcoming about the partisan nature of his product. Fox News is not. That is the reason this story is noteworthy, imo.]

        Sammon's revelation that he thought his own claims were far-fetched are noteworthy because Fox News (and other right-wing propagandists) have played tricks with the words "socialist" and "socialism". When called on it by other journalists, Fox News management has had limited success in getting away with it, because they claim they've use the terms in a subjective and comparative manner when analyzing President Obama's policies (e.g., "Obama's policies are more socialist than conservative policies."). But as soon as Sammon introduced this characterization of Obama's...er...policies, Fox "personalities" on Fox's "non-news/opinion" shows quickly expanded the theme by repeatedly claiming that President Obama is a socialist, which is demonstrably false. Nevertheless, the not-so-subtle trick management used to mainstream the characterizations on Fox News programming, thereby taking advantage of all the dark connotations associated with the words, is plain to see.

        Fox News gets undeserved credibility as a news network. FNC may have every right to exist, but it should not be allowed to misrepresent itself within the journalism community. And Sammon deserves NO credibility as a provider of news and information.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by tspang (March 29, 2011 8:58 am ET)
        16  
        I know, right? This is totally dog-bites-man territory.

        Hardly surprising to hear a Fox "News" executive bragging about his contributions to the cause in front of a conservative audience.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Andy Kreiss (March 29, 2011 11:14 am ET)
          15 3
          I see that "yawn" comment from the Foxbots quite a bit. I think it can be translated as " Man, I get so tired of being exposed as a sucker!".
          Report Abuse
    • Author by CLiberal76 (March 29, 2011 8:17 am ET)
      3 40
      Look, everybody with a brain knows that Obama has socialistic leanings, it's no secret.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Mikeystyle (March 29, 2011 8:21 am ET)
        33 1
        Everybody knows that Fox just makes things up, it's no secret---and now it's REALLY no secret. The guy admits to making claims that he himself didn't think were true!

        Let's keep in mind this guy is supposed to be a REPORTER. He's supposed to be unbiased--he's not a commentator, he's a bueau chief.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by ScienceBuff (March 29, 2011 8:31 am ET)
        26 1
        You'll never get agreement from any real socialists. Tell a socialist that Obama is a socialist and he/she will either laugh in your face or turn away in disgust. There is very little in his policies, words or actions that qualify. He is much closer to Adam Smith than he is to Karl Marx.

        Those who level the socialist charge against Obama are just echoing talking points and exposing their ignorance.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by cugagcmu805031 (March 29, 2011 1:45 pm ET)
          9  
          This verifies what you say about whether real socialists consider President Obama a socialist or not, and you're right.

          Trolls can either click on the link or copy and paste to find that they're wrong when they call the president a socialist. When they use this term, they have no idea what they're talking about and are only parroting what they've heard rw talkers say.

          http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/may2009/db20090522_329825.htm
          Report Abuse
      • Author by PurpleState (March 29, 2011 9:16 am ET)
        10 14
        So he's not a socialist, right?

        I mean, you could lean in a direction without being something, right?

        Backpedalling has already begun.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by wizbing (March 29, 2011 4:49 pm ET)
          6  
          Who is backpedalling? Who claimed he is socialist? No one on the left said so. No centrist said so. Only people on the far right. So who is backpedalling?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Andy Kreiss (March 29, 2011 6:29 pm ET)
            4  
            I think PS was referring to CLiberal's post, re: the "socialistic leanings". It's a weasel away from "socialist".
            Report Abuse
            • Author by juliajayne1 (March 29, 2011 6:57 pm ET)
              6 1
              I say it's more a Liesel than a weasel.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by Andy Kreiss (March 29, 2011 7:15 pm ET)
                8  
                You're probably right. I'm glad I came back here, did you notice akmikeus and his gal pal 1mg both seem to be crushing on me? Don't fight, my little chickadees, there's enough of me to go around!
                Report Abuse
                • Author by juliajayne1 (March 29, 2011 7:49 pm ET)
                  7 1
                  You are hott! Any mischievious speculator can see that!
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by Andy Kreiss (March 29, 2011 7:54 pm ET)
                    6  
                    But I'm always attracting the wrong kinda guys ! ( jk, I love my wingnut boy toys!)
                    Report Abuse
                • Author by juliajayne1 (March 29, 2011 8:07 pm ET)
                  3 1
                  You are hott! Any mischievious speculator can see that!
                  Report Abuse
      • Author by bintx (March 29, 2011 9:25 am ET)
        11 1
        No, people with fried brains from watching too much Fox and listening to too much hate talk radio believes that he is. Most intelligent folks think that people like you are idiots.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by liberal100 (March 29, 2011 10:30 am ET)
        10  
        What is your definition of socialistic leanings
        Report Abuse
      • Author by CoolSlaw (March 29, 2011 11:52 am ET)
        12 1
        Look, everybody with a brain knows that Obama has socialistic leanings, it's no secret.


        Please explain to us brainless liberals and progressives how those socialist leanings have manifested themselves? Last time I checked, President Obama has been a good buddy to big capital and loves tax cuts during a time when taxes are already at historic lows.

        It's laughable to imply socialism when the President is taking us deeper into the policies of hard right wing capitalism and corporatism.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by kabniel (March 29, 2011 7:14 pm ET)
        7 1
        Cliar

        Ah no. Everyone with a brain knows that you are a LIAR and that Obama is as far from being a socialist as anyone else who would reject single payer without even giving it a chance. You are disgustingly brainwashed. Why dont you just STFU and let the adults talk?
        Report Abuse
    • Author by Mikeystyle (March 29, 2011 8:19 am ET)
      20 3
      The heads of the History Channel and Fox News announced Monday their two cable networks will merge to form a new channel, to be called the Fox History News Conspiracy Channel.

      The move was initiated by Roger Ailes, president of the Fox News Channel, after Jewish leaders called on Fox talk show host Glenn Beck to stop comparing everyone he dislikes to Adolph Hitler and the Nazis.

      “It used to be that people referred to the History Channel as ‘the Hitler Channel’ because it spent so much time on World War II,” Ailes said. “Now that the History Channel has moved on to other things, and with Glenn Beck having such a Nazi fetish, it seemed only natural that we use what little credibility the History Channel has left to stifle our critics.”

      Ailes pointed out the daily references to Nazis on his network and said the merger became inevitable after Beck repeatedly claimed that billionaire George Soros was a Nazi conspirator and participated in the Holocaust.

      (continued…)
      Report Abuse
    • Author by joemac (March 29, 2011 8:32 am ET)
      2 23
      well any one with a brain knows that obama and his cronies ARE socialist
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Andy Kreiss (March 29, 2011 11:19 am ET)
        19  
        First, they came for your punctuation...

        Did you notice that you made an almost identical post to CLiberal76's above ? Did you notice that both of you speculated about what people with brains know, although neither of you would seem to have any first hand experience in that department ?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by mescal (March 29, 2011 6:20 pm ET)
          6 1
          That's why these right wing zombies actually come here, Andy. They themselves are pretty freakin' brainless, and so they want to eat ours.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by gentlereader (March 29, 2011 11:43 am ET)
        7 1
        God I wish that were true. But alas it's NOT.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by indictgwbush (March 29, 2011 2:23 pm ET)
        6  
        The only people that should fear so called socialism are the greedy, self absorbed, can't get enough money, predatory capitalists that are actually running this country(into the ground).
        Report Abuse
      • Author by kabniel (March 29, 2011 8:00 pm ET)
        3 1
        joe

        You are a LIAR. Anyone with a single functional braincell knows you are a LIAR and the garbage you just spewed was a LIE
        Report Abuse
    • Author by freedoms (March 29, 2011 8:35 am ET)
      1 30
      Come on Media Matters. I'd hardly call this "lying." It's more like he was connecting dots with a handful of mud, but not lying.
      For the anatomy of a lie, see my web site at http://FoxNewsLies.net
      Nice try though.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Mikeystyle (March 29, 2011 8:43 am ET)
        26  
        He said something he himself believed to be untrue as a politial attack. He's supposed to be an unbiased news executive, not the leader of a partisan hatchet squad.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by freedoms (March 29, 2011 9:02 am ET)
          1 27
          Mikeystyle, I don't disagree with your premise. He may have been dishonest, but I don't think that somebody (including a new executive) who admits to being dishonest is the same thing as him being a liar. My quibble is that the headline above isn't supported by the paragraphs and the audio below it.
          If somebody walks into their local grocery store and steals a tomato, they may be dishonest - but that doesn't make them a liar.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by peace4all (March 29, 2011 9:13 am ET)
            20  
            "If somebody walks into their local grocery store and steals a tomato, they may be dishonest - but that doesn't make them a liar." ~freedoms

            no, it makes them dishonest AND a thief.

            if you tell someone something you do not believe that makes you dishonest AND a liar.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by freedoms (March 29, 2011 9:30 am ET)
              1 25
              peace4all, I guess what I'm saying is, if Bill Sammon and Barack Obama were sitting in a room, and Barack Obama said, "I'm a firm believer in capitalism," and Sammon walked right out of the room and said, "Barack Obama just admitted to me that he's a Socialist," that's a lie.
              Basing opinions on incomplete information - is obviously dishonest, but I'd hardly call that a lie.
              I have no problem with the item above - just the characterization in the headline that it's "lying."
              Bill Sammon, like some of the people at Fox News, frequently form bold opinions (and state them as facts) based on manufactured premises all the time. But I don't always think they're "lying" when they do it.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by peace4all (March 29, 2011 9:49 am ET)
                16  
                but it is a lie. if i get a hummer from some woman and my wife finds out and asks if i had sex with that woman and i say no because all i got was a hummer that is still a lie. even though some would say that i did not really have sex.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by PurpleState (March 29, 2011 10:42 am ET)
                8 2
                I think the word we are looking for is "embellishment".

                Sammons has no concrete evidence in claims of socialism, so he uses conjecture as his own device. He embellishes and fabricates situations.

                Maybe you can't call it a "lie" but it stinks like one.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by freedoms (March 29, 2011 10:51 am ET)
                  1 20
                  PurpleState, finally somebody understands what I'm trying to say here. Thanks!
                  I'm certainly not defending Sammon. I'm just calling into question the word "lying" in the headline above.
                  I think there are far worse examples of Fox News Lies than this is.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by CoolSlaw (March 29, 2011 11:58 am ET)
                    16 1
                    However you want to parse words and split hairs, it's clear that Sammon's intentions were to push a negative story about then candidate Obama that he himself found inaccurate at best, a complete fabrication at worst.

                    Remember that Fox news is still maintaining that they are a legitimate news organization. This is not ethical behavior for anything but a clearly defined propaganda outlet.
                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by PurpleState (March 29, 2011 12:57 pm ET)
                    2 6
                    I disagree.

                    Lies are justifiable and easy to pick out. I think what we're seeing here is "slander".
                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by wizbing (March 29, 2011 7:29 pm ET)
                    7  
                    I'm certainly not defending Sammon. I'm just calling into question the word "lying" in the headline above.
                    It was not presented as an opinion. It was not presented as uncertain or far-fetched. What Sammon admitted later was far-fetched speculation was made into a statement of fact that Obama was a socialist or as good as. And I think, when he said it was far-fetched speculation he was sugar-coating anyway.

                    I think there are far worse examples of Fox News Lies than this is.
                    Maybe, but this is one lie for which we have a recorded confession.
                    Report Abuse
                • Author by kabniel (March 29, 2011 7:19 pm ET)
                  8  
                  No I can absolutly call it a lie. Deliberatly giving false information is the basic definition of lying. He gave information he did not believe to be true. Same thing. Add in the added obligation to someone whose very JOB is to inform people to have their facts correct and there is no way OUT of it being a lie.
                  Report Abuse
              • Author by barscotch9441 (March 31, 2011 10:35 am ET)
                3  
                Scenario:

                Dick Cheney shoots a guy in the face on a "hunting" trip. I think briefly about it...he's vice president, well-known, sort of controversial, and was surrounded by witnesses. Do I believe he meant to kill that guy? Nah. Doesn't make sense. I still think Cheney is a profiteering warmonger who should have to undergo the "enhanced interrogation techniques" that he advocates before okaying them, but I don't believe he shot the guy on purpose.

                However, I happen to be a staffer for some liberal magazine. So even though I don't think he's really a psychotic, I am going to write an article that uses his political behavior and the "hunting" accident as "evidence" that Cheney's political behavior is tantamount to psychosis and that he should be removed from office.

                So, to sum up: I don't really think he's violently psychotic, but I'm going to say he is to encourage his ouster.

                You wouldn't call me a liar?
                Report Abuse
          • Author by jonimacaroni1 (March 29, 2011 10:37 am ET)
            10  
            With your website being so dedicated to "lies", you'd think you'd know the definition better, "freedoms".

            http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lie

            a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.

            Telling a falsehood with the intent to deceive is lying. Obama's not a socialist, nor is wanting to "share the wealth" in the way that Obama was talking about a socialist ideal. Sammon was lying.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by freedoms (March 29, 2011 10:49 am ET)
              2 15
              Jonimacroon1, I don't think you read the part of the definition that said "to speak falsely or utter untruth KNOWINGLY." That's the crux of my argument. Sammon didn't have knowledge one way or the other about Barack Obama's true political leanings.
              He was merely "speculating" about them.
              By that definition it wasn't a lie.
              He was taking a statement and was, as I said before, connecting the dots with a handful of mud.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by jonimacaroni1 (March 29, 2011 12:18 pm ET)
                9 1
                That's baloney. Of course Sammon knows that Obama's not a socialist, and knows that "sharing the wealth" with a progressive tax structure isn't socialism. Trying to excuse his behavior is covering for him.

                This isn't about Sammon not being able to determine if Obama's entire life and everything he says about his political philosophy is simply all a deception. What Sammon needs to do is use readily available info about Obama's political leanings to make a judgment about what Obama's political leanings are. Given that evidence, Obama's not a socialist.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by djheru (March 29, 2011 1:36 pm ET)
                7  
                It doesn't matter if Obama is a Socialist or not. Sammon did not believe that he was ('far-fetched'), yet he said it anyway. If you are making statements you believe to be false, you are lying.

                My 4 year old can understand that, why can't the average Faux News troll?
                Report Abuse
          • Author by takemycountryback (March 29, 2011 11:18 am ET)
            9  
            And if someone makes an analogy that has no relevancy to the discussion that that makes that person both a dunce and boring.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by Andy Kreiss (March 29, 2011 11:22 am ET)
            12 1
            I don't think that somebody ... who admits to being dishonest is the same thing as him being a liar. ( freedoms)


            Thank you, freedoms, for that bit of candor. Most right wingers aren't so up-front about their sociopathy.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by freedoms (March 29, 2011 11:54 am ET)
              3 10
              I sure hope you don't think I'm a right winger. I'm not. I'm about as far left as anybody here. But I just don't was us to become them.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by CoolSlaw (March 29, 2011 12:06 pm ET)
                12  
                Thanks for the concern, but I think it's pretty clear what happened here. If Sammons were a pundit or an opinion show host, it would be different. If Hannity or even O'Reilly admitted to such a thing, it wouldn't carry the same weight. This man is supposed to be a serious news editor.

                If this was a news director at MSNBC or CBS news pushing a similar story about McCain in this fashion, the howling form the right wing would be deafening. I guarantee that news director, editor, or producer would be fired(and probably rightly so) within hours of the story breaking.

                I think it's important to expose these stories and call things as they are. Journalism has sunk so low in this country because of exactly this kind of behavior.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by freedoms (March 29, 2011 12:31 pm ET)
                  3 6
                  But CoolSlaw, I am in 100% agreement with you! I think this post is a very good example of what Fox News does. (I highly respect Media Matters for what it does everyday) This is the first time I've ever disagreed with one of its headlines. (And only one word in it at that)
                  I guess I'm just wondering if we don't become them, if, as you say, "the howling from the right wing," is replaced by howling from the left wing - but just in this one case.
                  The item itself is fine. Sammon should be called into question for this kind of nonsense.


                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by CoolSlaw (March 29, 2011 7:52 pm ET)
                    7 1
                    I guess I'm just wondering if we don't become them, if, as you say, "the howling from the right wing," is replaced by howling from the left wing - but just in this one case


                    Clearly, a false equivalence is being presented here. I'll run with it anyway. Let's see what would need to happen for us to "become them".

                    1) First, in order to "become them" we'd need to all watch a liberal news network that presented it's news division (not opinion shows) as "fair and balanced" journalism.

                    2) Then, we would need to see a top level news (again, not an opinion show producer, but NEWS) director admit to pushing a narrative that was intensionally damaging to a major republican political figure, while knowing it was false.

                    3) Then we'd need to see that dubious and clearly partisan theme echoed across liberal media and pushed willfully and relentlessly into the mainstream media by that same news director and many others at the media outlet he worked for.

                    4) Finally, we would need to have this high level news director on the record admitting he was pushing what he knew to be a story with little, if any credibility.

                    Only if those conditions were met, would there be any chance of "us" becoming like "them". Since right wing media and left wing media operate on two totally different paradigms, this is not a matter of "what if" or "they do it too." Otherwise your concern is just failed attempt at a false equivalence.

                    Report Abuse
              • Author by jonimacaroni1 (March 29, 2011 12:19 pm ET)
                6 3
                Oh, lookie, concern troll is concerned.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by Andy Kreiss (March 29, 2011 12:19 pm ET)
                8 1
                Sorry if I made an incorrect assumption, that's just a mindset I see mostly from the far-right, parsing differences between "dishonest" and "liar".
                Report Abuse
                • Author by freedoms (March 29, 2011 12:43 pm ET)
                  5 3
                  Oh my Andy Kriess, I'm sorry you got that impression. (And I'm sorry if anybody else got that impression in this thread) Here's a little background for you. I'm constantly searching the internet for Fox News Lies. (I post them on my own web site - mentioned above - and with deliberate vigor) When I made my daily visit, I was heartened to see the word "lying," then I was a bit disappointed to find out what the lie was. That's all.
                  What I think Sammon said was ridiculous. I just didn't think it was a lie.
                  Report Abuse
          • Author by indictgwbush (March 29, 2011 2:28 pm ET)
            4  
            Jeez; what a crock of s#*t!
            Report Abuse
      • Author by jonimacaroni1 (March 29, 2011 10:34 am ET)
        10 1
        It's a lie that Obama is a socialist. It's a lie that "sharing the wealth" equates to socialism.

        Sammon knows this. He lied.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by freedoms (March 29, 2011 10:43 am ET)
          2 16
          Unfortunately, that's not what Sammon said.
          He used the word "speculation." As in, (He engaged in) "speculation about whether Barack Obama really advocated socialism, a premise that privately I found rather far-fetched."
          If he knew for a fact that Obama wasn't a socialist, and he said he knows for a fact is was one - that's a lie.
          Formulating an opinion based on unknowable information might be projecting a dishonest belief - but I can't call that a lie.


          Report Abuse
          • Author by CoolSlaw (March 29, 2011 12:11 pm ET)
            9 1
            Unfortunately, Sammon is a news director, not an opinion show host. Are you so ready to shrug your shoulders and let the state of journalism continue to decline?

            Do you understand the role of journalists? Do you understand the difference between someone who is supposed to be a journalist, and someone who is a pundit or opinion show host?

            I think this concern trolling is nothing but providing cover for a clear cut example of pushing partisan propaganda.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by jonimacaroni1 (March 29, 2011 12:20 pm ET)
            7 2
            God, you're dense, or dishonest, or both.

            Sammon knew that it was a lie that Obama's a socialist, and that a progressive tax structure that "shares the wealth" isn't socialism.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by freedoms (March 29, 2011 1:05 pm ET)
              5 7
              You're exactly what I'm talking about when I say we don't want to become them. I don't have any idea why you would call me dense or dishonest. But that comes directly from the Fox News handbook. We have a disagreement, and suddenly you question my intelligence because I don't understand you? I do understand you. I just don't agree with you.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by juliajayne1 (March 29, 2011 7:18 pm ET)
                8  
                MO...
                Bill Sammons knowingly and wilfully lied. Dood didn't "speculate" about jack.

                It's time to call a lie a lie or we DO become just like them and give credence to lies and liars.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by CoolSlaw (March 29, 2011 8:03 pm ET)
                5 1
                You're exactly what I'm talking about when I say we don't want to become them.


                If you were really so concerned about us all "becoming like them", you would stop making excuses for people who have a long history of dishonesty and clearly partisan agenda.

                Stop making excuses for liars, because that's what the right wing does constantly.

                If you don't want to become like them, then stand against the continual denigration of journalism and the lowering of journalistic standards.

                Giving liars and fake journalists a free pass is what the right wing does. If you really were concerned about us "becoming them", you wouldn't be so quick to downplay this story.
                Report Abuse
          • Author by ScienceBuff (March 29, 2011 12:23 pm ET)
            11 1
            Sammon used the word "speculation" on the cruise ship, but that doesn't accurately describe his statements during the election. Those were more accurately described as assertions which he now acknowledges he believed were far-fetched. That is what makes him an acknowledged liar.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by Occam'sTaser (March 29, 2011 10:49 pm ET)
            6 1
            What everyone seems to be overlooking here is the candy coating implicit in Sammon's word choices. "Speculation and Mischievous." There are much stronger words available, but would you really expect him to use them at a speaking engagement.

            This was not intended to be an actual confession, and without jumper cables on his testicles, I would imagine this is as good as it gets.

            Besides, by buying off on the whole 'speculation' premise, you are taking the word of a liar. Bad policy.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Andy Kreiss (March 30, 2011 7:48 pm ET)
              4  
              Thanks for making that point, Occam's. You're right , this was a "wink wink, nudge nudge" confession among friendlies. To anybody with a functioning brain, it's an admission of lying. To the hypnotized, it's an invitation to pretend that MMFA ( or anybody) was saying that lying and speculating are the same thing.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by Occam'sTaser (March 30, 2011 8:51 pm ET)
                5  
                Man:
                Your, uh, your wife, does she go, eh, does she go, eh?

                Squire:
                (flustered)
                Well, she sometimes 'goes', yes.

                Man:
                Aaaaaaaah bet she does, I bet she does, say no more, say no more, know whatahmean, nudge nudge?

                LOL
                Report Abuse
              • Author by Occam'sTaser (March 30, 2011 9:00 pm ET)
                5  
                Maybe if there was a big meter behind these 'speculators' for the audience to monitor when they speak -- one end of scale being TRUE DAT --
                MODEST EMBELLISHMENT somewhere near the middle, and --
                AUDACIOUS BUG-EYED WHOPPER at the far right.

                Where else?
                Report Abuse
      • Author by kabniel (March 29, 2011 7:16 pm ET)
        5 1
        No one is going to your webmewlings blogwhore. It was a LIE. By any reasonable definition it was a LIE. Spin, obfuscate, lie, disseminate all you want. We are never going to be as stupid as you. We actually believe the evidence in front of our face not what we are TOLD to beleive by rightwing screechmonkeys
        Report Abuse
    • Author by Truth 2 (March 29, 2011 8:38 am ET)
      10 1
      WOW Meghead you have hit almost every blog on this site this morning… for someone who thinks MM is so bad you sure are here a lot. Now answer me this dip s--t, show me one time when MMF has lied and not backed up everything it has said about Fox and all the idiots that work there. Better yet Google Fox Lies and so many hits come up it would take years to get to all of them…..
      Report Abuse
    • Author by eddie-george (March 29, 2011 8:49 am ET)
      11  
      "When it comes to government spending as a percentage of gross domestic product, the United States has now surpassed Sweden."

      Really? Sammon was speaking in 2009, and even if the 2008 data was available then (very unlikely), Sweden came in at 52% of GDP, and the USA at 39%.

      Still, it's not like Sammon cares about accuracy.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by bondcliff (March 29, 2011 9:06 am ET)
      12 2
      Terrible. This taping of news executives saying what they think is a private conversation. ...Oh wait, that's FOX's preferred method of Gotcha Journalism. My bad.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Andy Kreiss (March 29, 2011 11:26 am ET)
        13  
        They may not consider this serious journalism, as nobody was dressed up like a cartoon pimp or fantasizing about imaginary child prostitution rings.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by mary59 (March 29, 2011 8:42 pm ET)
          7  
          It's not journalism until Charles Krauthamer or Bill Kristol weigh in.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Andy Kreiss (March 30, 2011 1:55 am ET)
            5  
            Hi Mary! Happy Late Birthday. I was looking all over for you. Hope it was a good one.
            Report Abuse
    • Author by terrapin53 (March 29, 2011 9:08 am ET)
      10  
      Cabin rates ranged from $11,800 to $37,600 per couple.

      The heck with Sammon. Where do you cruise to for that kind of money?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by onementalgiant (March 29, 2011 9:28 am ET)
      4 28
      "Top Fox News Executive Admits Lying On-Air About Obama"

      Mischievous speculation = lying in the world of MMFA and it's loony leftists.

      But, on a serious note, I heard yesterday that MMFA has started a campaign to personally attack FOX News employees and their families to dig up any "dirt". This included the hiring of some private investigators to follow them, build files, etc. Apparently the attacks on Bill Sammon are the result of these underhanded filthy tactics from a supposed legitimate web site.

      On the other hand, what's new? The Left has been cheating and lying for decades (starting in earnest when the Kennedy family cheated Nixon out of his first attempt at presidency).

      BTW, please spare me the "omg is whining" or some such drivel you libbies so often trot out whenever a conservative offers a criticism of MMFA. It's really hypocritical when you do this, since 90% of posts from the Left are complaints about the Right. In fact, come to think of it, MMFA's objective is to criticize and complain about the Right. What's surprising is there are sooooo many lefties who can't see this hypocrisy.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Truth 2 (March 29, 2011 9:52 am ET)
        16 2
        Onementalychallenged, Ya, saw that on Beck...so that makes it true....Really the Kennedy's cheated Nixon???? But wait he was a great president hu.... no cheating there......
        Report Abuse
      • Author by bjvom (March 29, 2011 9:52 am ET)
        14 1
        There is nothing hypocritical about MMFA complaining about Bill Sammon. They are doing precisely what they state is their intention; pointing out the lies of the right. There is nothing hypocritical about refuting Fox's smears with fact-based reports. You may call them underhanded attacks, but most reasonable observers would see it as a fair presentation.
        If you have any doubts concerning NewsCorp's lack of journalistic integrity, listen to how many of their talking heads begin a story or an interview with the words "some people are saying."
        Report Abuse
      • Author by JoeSixpack (March 29, 2011 9:56 am ET)
        14 2
        I heard yesterday that MMFA has started a campaign to personally attack FOX News employees and their families to dig up any "dirt".

        Oh, you "heard" that, did you? I notice the conspicuous absence of anything even remotely resembling evidence. Is this like Fox's favorite phrase, "Some say...?"

        MMFA's objective is to criticize and complain about the Right.

        ... which they do while offering full evidence in support of their legitimate complaints. Key words: "evidence" and "legitimate."
        Report Abuse
        • Author by jonimacaroni1 (March 29, 2011 10:47 am ET)
          13 2
          There's evidence to sort of back up what he said, and it's been discussed on multiple places here at MediaMatters. His depiction of it is inaccurate, of course, but Politico did a story about David Brock over the weekend.

          "The strategy that we had had toward Fox was basically a strategy of containment," said Brock, Media Matters' chairman and founder and a former conservative journalist, adding that the group's main aim had been to challenge the factual claims of the channel and to attempt to prevent them from reaching the mainstream media.

          The new strategy, he said, is a "war on Fox."

          In an interview and a 2010 planning memo shared with POLITICO, Brock listed the fronts on which Media Matters — which he said is operating on a $10 million-plus annual budget — is working to chip away at Fox and its parent company, News Corp. They include its bread-and-butter distribution of embarrassing clips and attempts to rebut Fox points, as well as a series of under-the-radar tactics
          .

          There's no evidence of underhanded behavior that's targeting their personal lives to dig up dirt. They're looking at public records, and trying to find disgruntled employees, succeeding in finding some who've already leaked emails to MediaMatters.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by jonimacaroni1 (March 29, 2011 10:48 am ET)
            6  
            I replaced the quotation marks and apostrophes, but didn't know that I had to replace the hyphens too!
            Report Abuse
      • Author by tspang (March 29, 2011 10:01 am ET)
        11  
        Ok, so you don't like the word "lying."

        Would you be more comfortable with wording like "...admits to pushing dubious Republican talking points" or "...admits to using his position of VP of "News" to advance Republican presidential campaign?"

        Because it's pretty clear that's what he was doing, don't you think?

        Now THIS sounds like mischievous speculation: "But, on a serious note, I heard yesterday that MMFA has started a campaign to personally attack FOX News employees and their families to dig up any "dirt""
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Andy Kreiss (March 29, 2011 11:39 am ET)
          14  
          Onementaldefect does not like the word lying. That's the case with most pathological liars, and he has told me personally that he does not want to be called a liar when he continually gets his facts wrong.

          He prefers the only other explanation,"idiot". Please respect his wishes.

          For example, 1mg wrote above;

          I heard yesterday that MMFA has started a campaign to personally attack FOX News employees and their families to dig up any "dirt"


          Now, what 1mg heard may be totally untrue ( he offered no evidence, and others have provided material that shows that "what he heard" wasn't accurate), and he may have heard it from Sean Hannity, the drunk on the corner, his grandpa, or from the voices in his head.

          But...

          Nobody here can prove that 1mg did not hear what he claims he heard, so he's not lying.

          I think what a normal person needs to accept when dealing with those on the far right is their entirely different standards for defining "lying". Repeating a lie isn't a lie to them, as long as they believe it, or frame it as "something they heard".

          They make it clear, right wingers do not want to be held to the higher moral and ethical standards that most of us apply to ourselves.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by jjcomet514 (March 29, 2011 10:07 am ET)
        14 1
        Another conservative determined to prove he has no grasp of logic or reading comprehension skills.

        I's pretty simple, genius. Making a public claim that you privately believe is untrue is a lie. Even a value-free imbecile such as yourself SHOULD be able to see that.

        As for your charge of hypocrisy against MMFA, you really should read their mission statement before (again) making an ass of yourself. MMFA exists not to "criticize and complain about the Right" but to highlight examples of right-wing bias in the media. Revealing that the president of a putative news organization publicly repeated a falsehood to support his own personal political views is exactly in line with their stated mission, It's not hypocrisy at all (Do you even know what that work means?). Get an education before you presume to converse with adults.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by pecst1 (March 29, 2011 10:18 am ET)
        11  
        starting in earnest when the Kennedy family cheated Nixon out of his first attempt at presidency).

        Hahahahahahahahha.......awesome. Let's rehab Nixon now. Damn liberals have been bad mouthing him for too long!

        Moreover, I don't like MMfA new direction, but where was it said that it would be Fox employees, "and their families"? And their families? Paranoid conspiracies are contagious, obviously.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by Semprini (March 29, 2011 10:49 am ET)
        15  
        He admits to pushing a falsehood as a newsman. There are memos showing him shaping the way news is reported on Fox.

        Deliberate misrepresentation of facts is lying. Qed.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by onementalgiant (March 29, 2011 12:53 pm ET)
          3 16
          All I can say is I'm humbled. For all of the above respectful replies to my message I am truly honored.

          And as predictable and consistent as the 5:00 PM train arriving at 5:00 PM, dandy Andy once again delivers his arrogant condescending comments - sentence after sentence filled with his snarky remarks. Makes ya wonder if that's all he's got after a while. I kinda feel sorry for the poor slob - er, snob. Keep at it Andy. I'm proud of ya. And I appreciate it.

          On topic, the source for what I "heard" was yesterday's Hannity radio program when he had Brent Bozell of Media Research Center with him (you know, MRC where they back up their data with REAL facts in case any of you want to read the real deal). Also, to those of you in fantasyland (unfortunately this means most of you), it is in fact MMFA's objective to criticize FOX News. Good grief. They probably spend 98% of their time on this every day so how on earth can you dispute THIS?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by foghornleghorn (March 29, 2011 1:25 pm ET)
            13 1
            MRC is not a reliable source. Many times they DON'T back up their data with facts. Bozell is a clown. Make a note of it.

            And if Fox News stopped telling lies, then they would stop making appearances on this site.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by pecst1 (March 29, 2011 1:40 pm ET)
            16 1
            Typical. You're an over privileged fraud. You walk in with your first comment and direct "loony leftist" at anyone reading it. Then, when called on it with equal derision, you're suddenly above it all and use words like respect and humble. Not an ounce of respect or compassion for anything that doesn't stop at the end of your nose but your feelings and sensibilities are so fragile. Childish.

            Report Abuse
          • Author by tspang (March 29, 2011 2:02 pm ET)
            10  
            1mg, how about taking a crack at answering my question from above:

            "Would you be more comfortable with wording like "...admits to pushing dubious Republican talking points" or "...admits to using his position of VP of "News" to advance Republican presidential campaign?"

            Because it's pretty clear that's what he was doing, don't you think?"


            Do you think this is reasonable behavior for an unbiased journalist?
            Report Abuse
            • Author by onementalgiant (March 29, 2011 6:05 pm ET)
              1 10
              "Would you be more comfortable with wording like "...admits to pushing dubious Republican talking points" or "...admits to using his position of VP of "News" to advance Republican presidential campaign?"

              My answer to both is not really. Sammon is probably a conservative but as long as his Party affiliation doesn't influence the news reporting of his staff who cares? Many, if not most, print media editors are left-of-left liberals so what's the problem with Sammon? Heck, frequently the NYT allows opinions that obviously belong in the Opinion Section to drift into their supposed news pages. Not only this, for anyone who is honest, we all know ABC, CBS, and NBC are all biased towards the left. So Sammon said he speculated about Obama on whatever, BFD. And it was far fetched, also BFD. There were no lies.

              You people should actually be giving Sammon some CREDIT for admitting anyone who thinks Obama is a socialist is a far fetched thought.

              You know MMFA and so many of you get your panties all bunched up tight over the most trivial things. Sammon's talk was on a cruise ship for Christ's sake. Most of the people were probably half bagged and didn't even listen to him.

              I haven't seen so much trivia over FOX News by MMFA and it's lemmings in the last few months since the last time I played Trivial Pursuit.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by Andy Kreiss (March 29, 2011 6:47 pm ET)
                12 2
                There's a lot of stupid in your post, 1mg, but I don't want to overload you with trying to fix all of it. Let's focus on this;

                Sammon's talk was on a cruise ship for Christ's sake. Most of the people were probably half bagged and didn't even listen to him.


                Can you be this stupid ? It's completely irrelevant that his admission of lying... whoops, you're uncomfortable with that word, for some reason... " Mischievous speculation" was made on a cruise ship to some drunks. He could have made it to one person with a tape recorder in a closet.

                The point here is that he is on record as admitting that he, as the head of a so-called news network, deliberately brought up ideas that he knew were not credible, with the intent of causing trouble for the Democratic candidate.

                You think that's "trivial"? Your position as "confirmed idiot" seems to be perfectly safe.

                You got one thing right ( possibly) - giving Sammon credit for admitting the idea was far-fetched. But that has to assume that he knew his statements were going to get out, which we don't know.

                If Sammon had this rare moment of honesty ( guilty conscience, maybe) good for him. That puts him, at the very least, a cut above you. I don't believe I've ever seen you admit to any of your countless lies at this site.



                Report Abuse
              • Author by tspang (March 29, 2011 7:18 pm ET)
                6  
                @1mg
                Thanks for the lengthy reply. I have to say I agree with you completely when you say this:

                "Sammon is probably a conservative but as long as his Party affiliation doesn't influence the news reporting of his staff who cares?"

                The problem is, of course, that his ideology constantly influences the "news" reporting on FNC, which is why people care. This "socialism" bit is merely the latest example.

                And, once again, that's the crux of the matter: that FNC claims to be "fair and balanced" while their VP for "news" routinely pushes coverage to favor Republicans and disparage Democrats.

                Nobody would care about Sammon's political opinions if they didn't make their way into FNC's "news" reporting.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by tspang (March 29, 2011 7:18 pm ET)
                3  
                @1mg
                Thanks for the lengthy reply. I have to say I agree with you completely when you say this:

                "Sammon is probably a conservative but as long as his Party affiliation doesn't influence the news reporting of his staff who cares?"

                The problem is, of course, that his ideology constantly influences the "news" reporting on FNC, which is why people care. This "socialism" bit is merely the latest example.

                And, once again, that's the crux of the matter: that FNC claims to be "fair and balanced" while their VP for "news" routinely pushes coverage to favor Republicans and disparage Democrats.

                Nobody would care about Sammon's political opinions if they didn't make their way into FNC's "news" reporting.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by CoolSlaw (March 29, 2011 8:13 pm ET)
                7  
                Sammon is probably a conservative but as long as his Party affiliation doesn't influence the news reporting of his staff who cares?


                Can you at least respect us enough to even skim through the article before posting stuff like this? This is exactly what happened. You described it perfectly. There is probably no better example of someone pushing his political beliefs through their staff then this. Why would Sammon take it upon himself to push this attack on Obama that he really didn't believe himself, other then to harm candidate Obama? You are showing complete disconnect from logic here. Sorry. No name calling from me, just pointing out the obvious.
                Report Abuse
          • Author by jaguarundi (March 29, 2011 3:45 pm ET)
            7 2
            I got cut off before I could reply:
            OMG:
            But hey, go ahead and refuse to accept any data that doesn't fit your biased opinion. Not your fault really. Our schools have been brainwashed by liberals for decades so you were taught garbage (you know, garbage in - garbage out).

            Jaguarundi:
            Well, he has successfully avoided those ravages of intellectualism. He has that "natural knowledge" that so many neo-cons have. Truthiness is superior to actual truth. This guy is about as sharp as a bowling ball.

            OMG:
            Yeah jag. You're real smart. And so good at debating and such. Golly, you sure add to the conversation, Oh smart one.
            Actually, your the typical high browed leftist snob who can only sling insults. You're a cowardly loser unable to contribute anything meaningful.


            The inference is that you are free from the ravages of a school brainwashing and haven't been loaded with garbage. Apparently you are home schooled with no college?

            Often Right Wing Authoritarians posting here project their shortfalls of intellect on others here. They also post diatribes using all the phrases that hurt them because they are razor accurate when describing the poster. You post about "refuse to accept any data that does not fit your biased opinion" precisely fits you. Since they rationalize without logic and often incorporate logical fallacies, RWAs selectively accept only data that they can reconcile with their core beliefs. Your posting about "garbage" is a Freudian slip about how you subconsciously feel about your pre-programmed talking points. You should read up on your pathology and attempt to rise above it.

            Let's talk about some things Progressives have given the world:
            *The Renaissance
            *The Enlightenment
            *Science
            *An ocean of knowledge
            *and a funny new form of government called the American Democracy.

            Conservativism:
            *Religion and Religious repression
            *Monarchies
            *The Dark ages
            *War upon war upon war
            *Intelligent Design.

            But this is all lies from a liberal, commie, socialist, Marxist, Stalinist, Sorosian, Caliphate edumakation. Eh?

            Report Abuse
          • Author by Andy Kreiss (March 29, 2011 6:38 pm ET)
            7  
            Jeez, 1mg, talk about no good deed going unpunished. I defend you, and this is the thanks I get ? I clearly asked the other poster to respect your wishes, as you've demanded repeatedly that we assume you get things constantly wrong because you're an idiot, and not a liar.

            You didn't refute anything I wrote, so I'll guess your referring to it as nothing but snarky remarks is an admission that I hit the nail on the head.

            BTW, can't resist mentioning-

            by Andy Kreiss (6 hours and 50 minutes ago)
            ...he may have heard it from Sean Hannity ...


            by onementalgiant (5 hours and 35 minutes ago) ...the source for what I "heard" was yesterday's Hannity radio program...


            Nailed it again! No wonder I drive you bonkers, I know you better than you know yourself.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by onementalgiant (March 30, 2011 8:10 am ET)
                3
              "BTW, can't resist mentioning-

              by Andy Kreiss (6 hours and 50 minutes ago)
              ...he may have heard it from Sean Hannity ...

              by onementalgiant (5 hours and 35 minutes ago) ...the source for what I "heard" was yesterday's Hannity radio program...

              Nailed it again! No wonder I drive you bonkers, I know you better than you know yourself."

              What? No acknowledgement of my usual truthfulness? I coulda ducked the "where'd you hear it" question but can't help being honest, so piped up with "where I heard it", knowing you'd already said it may have been Hannity.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by mescal (March 30, 2011 8:44 am ET)
                4  
                Oooooo... very sly, kid... very sly.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by Andy Kreiss (March 30, 2011 12:35 pm ET)
                  4  
                  Yes, he was honest about the source of another lie he was trying to push here, and he wants a cookie.

                  Do you think it clicks with these people that we can guess the source of their confusion just by reading their regurgitations, that we can read them like a book?

                  I also love that he feels the need to copy & paste the bulk of other peoples' comments to reply. Do you think this is because he thinks everybody else has as much trouble as he does keeping up, or is he just trying to improve the overall quality of his posts by filling them with the more coherent words of the loony leftists ?
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by CoolSlaw (March 30, 2011 2:07 pm ET)
                    4  
                    This is so funny. I remember Limbaugh used to make this big stink about people wanting to be rewarded for obeying the law over some kind of social program or whatever non billionaire coddling legislation he was demonizing at the time.

                    Now right wingers are so deep into the Limbaugh, Fox news deception and misinformation racket that they want to be rewarded for occasionally not being totally dishonest.
                    Report Abuse
              • Author by wizbing (March 30, 2011 12:28 pm ET)
                5  
                thank you for the truthfulness. the problem is you think Hannity is a reliable source. he is a pathological liar. check Fox News archives, or Media Matters for many examples in Hannity's own words, from the horse's mouth.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by Andy Kreiss (March 30, 2011 12:46 pm ET)
                4 2
                Sorry, 1mg,I can't acknowledge your "usual truthfulness" any more than I can note your "impressive intellect" or your "beautiful unicorn". I don't live in your world of magic.

                I'm not sure why you want a pat on the head for being truthful about where you "heard" the latest lie you're trying to pass off as a fact here. BTW, have you apologized for that "speculation" anywhere, or are you just going to let it fester with all of your other lies?

                Your admitting where you were misinformed could possibly be called your "unusual truthfulness", but it's such an aberration for you, it's more likely the result of laziness than honesty.
                Report Abuse
          • Author by Badtime (March 30, 2011 11:54 am ET)
            4  
            Just some small points of contention here:

            1. While Andy did sort of take a jab at you, he then followed it up with a post of substance. Your retort could use a bit of that. Also, the 5 PM train rarely arrives at 5 PM. Your simile is moot.

            2. More importantly, you just admitted to recycling talking points from Mr. Hannity who has shown considerable political bias. Also, nice ad hominem aganst everyone here. Good work on that, your point is proven right?

            3. Finally (and most importantly), this site is dedicated to exposing bias and lies in media (damn that pesky mission statement). If Fox would stop lying and cheerleading for anyone with a (R) next to their name, they wouldn't make so many headlines here. Simple.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Andy Kreiss (March 30, 2011 12:40 pm ET)
              5  
              While Andy did sort of take a jab at you, he then followed it up with a post of substance.


              Thanks for mentioning that, Badtime, but I'm afraid 1mg is incapable of seeing it. Unless I've missed it, he has never posted anything of substance here. he's been caught in countless lies, and I'm pretty sure he's been beaten badly every time, on the rare occasion he's tried to argue a point.

              He doesn't answer simple, logical follow-up questions, and never provides anything to support his wacky opinions.

              He does like to creep back to old threads after a couple of days, when everybody has left, battling ridiculous strawmen and whining about how mean the leftists are, then declaring victory.

              In short, he's one of the more incompetent right wing trolls, but not too far below the average right wing troll.
              Report Abuse
    • Author by zxbe (March 29, 2011 9:30 am ET)
      7  
      And he apparently doesn't see anything wrong with this?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Egbert Souse (March 29, 2011 10:19 am ET)
      9  
      FoxNews: Far-fetched and unhinged.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by draftedin68 (March 29, 2011 11:01 am ET)
      11  
      SSDD...


      FOX NEWS - We Distort, You're Deceived


      Report Abuse
    • Author by FNC Liberal (March 29, 2011 11:11 am ET)
      8 1
      Save America by lying to the public. Intentionally misleading your television viewers should be a federal crime.

      I'm hope Bossman Sammon receives his walking papers soon. He's just as bad as Cheatwood.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by JPTravis (March 29, 2011 11:19 am ET)
      4 19
      So this is your George Soros money hard at work funding the anti-Fox News campaign. And the best you can come up with is a story about Fox calling Obama a socialist? Really? By what definition of socialism in any dictionary in the world is Obama NOT a socialist? Good grief, Media Matters, why not just change your name to FoxNewsObsessedNincompoops?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by bintx (March 29, 2011 11:45 am ET)
        10 2
        By what definition of socialism in any dictionary in the world is Obama NOT a socialist?


        None. Obama is quite centrist . . . so centrist that he has offended his progressive base.

        Thanks for confirming that you are not bright at all and are simply a mindless follower of the faux conservative drivel spewed on Fox. Repeating faux conservative talking points does not make one a conservative, nor does it give the appearance of intelligence. Just makes you look silly.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by akmikeus (March 29, 2011 12:28 pm ET)
          4 12
          You are a LIAR. You are a brainwashed MORON.
          You are a LIAR. You are a brainwashed MORON.
          You are a LIAR. You are a brainwashed MORON.

          Whoa, I've just channeled kabniel for a few seconds there.

          Sorry bintx, but the rage is strong in kabniel.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by onementalgiant (March 29, 2011 1:04 pm ET)
            1 10
            Ha ha Ha Ha Ha. A good 'un akmik.

            Poor kabbie needs some anger management counseling. Think he'd agree to 12 step help if we intervened?
            Report Abuse
            • Author by akmikeus (March 29, 2011 1:38 pm ET)
              1 13
              I'm not getting no where near kabniel, I rather play checkers with Loughner.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by MiniTru (March 29, 2011 2:27 pm ET)
                9  
                Why not? You share the same ideas.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by juliajayne1 (March 29, 2011 7:26 pm ET)
                9  
                You'd suffer a murderer, because kabniel doesn't suffer fools? Wow, you're twisted.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by kabniel (March 29, 2011 7:29 pm ET)
                6  
                Amike

                GOOD. That means I will be spared the horrific stench eminating from the rotting remnants of what is left of your soul.
                Report Abuse
            • Author by kabniel (March 29, 2011 7:28 pm ET)
              5 2
              1mentalmidget

              Your projection is amusing. All you wingnuts see anger because you are too STUPID to see more nuanced motivations. You are ALWAYS motivated by anger and fear. I am not. I am one of the least emotional people you have ever met. It has been a problem for me. I return to you the contempt you spew at us. I do it BETTER than you do.

              I understand you are frustrated by your feelings of inadequacy caused by the way you get punked here everytime you show up. The thing is you should feel inferior. You ARE inferior. You will always BE inferior. You are a moron. There is nothing you can do about that
              Report Abuse
          • Author by kabniel (March 29, 2011 7:25 pm ET)
            4 2
            You are a LIAR. Everyone knows that. A PROVEN LIAR. Since when is stating the obvious a problem? I have no rage. You are pathetic. All I have for you is pity. I do amuse myself by slapping the stupid out of you. It is easy and entertaining. It is also nothing more than stating the obvious to say you are a brainwashed MORON. You always have been and you always will be.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by onementalgiant (March 29, 2011 9:43 pm ET)
              3 5
              Please STOP kabbie! It's just too much to ask us normal folks to take! I can't catch my breath so the wife is dialing 911 - but I can't tell her I don't think I'll need the ambulance 'cuz I can't stop laughing!

              What I need is for kabbie to stop posting!
              Report Abuse
              • Author by kabniel (March 29, 2011 10:07 pm ET)
                3  
                1mentalmidget

                What you NEED is a functional cerebral cortex and to stop LYING so much. Nixon LOST. You are a LIAR. So is Amike. That is the factual reality you hate so much. Keep laughing. We should share. I find you and your endless string of lies hilarious. I love to laugh at morons as stupid as you.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by Andy Kreiss (March 30, 2011 7:56 pm ET)
                  4  
                  I like when they have to tell you how hard they're laughing. You know the guys a quivering, sobbing, raging mess.
                  Report Abuse
      • Author by tspang (March 29, 2011 11:47 am ET)
        14  
        It seems that the point of the article has completely evaded you.

        Let me see if I can simplify things:

        Fox News VP Bill Sammon, from the purported "news", not opinion division (you can tell the difference right? me neither), speaking in front of a conservative audience, admitted to mischievously advancing a meme that he himself thought was dubious. A meme that, surpirse, surprise, works to the Republicans' benefit.

        How does that square with the "Fair and Balanced" theme? How does that not completely destroy all appearances of journalistic integrty?
        Report Abuse
      • Author by tspang (March 29, 2011 11:48 am ET)
        12  
        JP, I almost forgot:

        You get wingnut bonus points for the gratutious Soros reference!

        Congrats!
        Report Abuse
      • Author by jonimacaroni1 (March 29, 2011 12:25 pm ET)
        12 1
        Supporting a progressive tax structure that takes more from the richest in America (and thereby "shares the wealth") isn't a socialist practice. And Obama's not a socialist.

        It's a lie to say that he is. There's no evidence that he is.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by PurpleState (March 29, 2011 1:00 pm ET)
        8  
        You're on the record for resorting straight to name-calling.

        If Fox is this dishonest in this one instance, when does it become more like their nature and less like a coincidence?
        Report Abuse
      • Author by kabniel (March 29, 2011 8:06 pm ET)
        3 1
        JPTravis

        By ANY definition by EVERY legitimate dictionary in the world. GOD but you people are so stupid and so brainwashed you embarass all carbon based lifeforms everywhere. What industries has he nationalized? Advocated nationalizing? None? Imagine that. Here is a clue someone as stupid as you desperatly needs. Just because Beck or Rush told you to think it doesnt make it true
        Report Abuse
      • Author by CoolSlaw (March 29, 2011 8:32 pm ET)
        6  
        JPTravis wrote:
        So this is your George Soros money hard at work funding the anti-Fox News campaign. And the best you can come up with is a story about Fox calling Obama a socialist?


        Strawman encountered.

        Quote from Bill Sammon:
        At that time, I have to admit, that I went on TV on Fox News and publicly engaged in what I guess was some rather mischievous speculation about whether Barack Obama really advocated socialism, a premise that privately I found rather far-fetched.


        Strawman destroyed.

        See, it's not JUST about calling Obama a socialist. It's about a powerful news director admitting he pushed this false and partisan talking point into the mainstream without even believing it himself.

        This is about a Fox news director's blatant partisanship on display. I can only assume from your post that you either didn't read the article, or you're trying to defend Fox news for purely partisan reasons.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by takemycountryback (March 29, 2011 11:20 am ET)
      14 2
      I love that more and more of these comments are getting the thumbs down. This means that republicans are coming here in droves because they can no longer deny the power of truth and their desperate need to fight it. Good job MM! You are getting under their skin.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Andy Kreiss (March 29, 2011 11:45 am ET)
        12 4
        There do seem to be a lot of the anonymous thumbs down lately, the Foxbots who obviously can't defend themselves, but need to show their support for the Sheepherders.

        Then there are the ones who go for the big laughs, and try to comment. See JPTRavis above, who sees an item about a Fox exec admitting to lying, and comes to the conclusion " Duhhhh... all yew got is a itim about Fox calling Obammah a soshelest ?"
        Report Abuse
      • Author by Andy Kreiss (March 29, 2011 12:23 pm ET)
        11 5
        Har ! That one got me a deuce ( so far). Must have hit a nerve.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by akmikeus (March 29, 2011 12:52 pm ET)
          4 14
          Well if getting thumbs down is considered "hitting a nerve", then I must be equaled to a 50,000 volt taser gun.

          It's okay to get a few thumbs down Andy as I'm 100 percent sure that your ego will survive intact.

          It must be fun to always be correct and to have the lemming bloggers here continue to keep you on your imaginary pedestal.

          Your one of my favorites on MMFA, but kabniel is just about to pass you.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by onementalgiant (March 29, 2011 1:12 pm ET)
            2 14
            Whoa....... A double akmik! Can't wait to scroll further down for more treats!

            BTW, I don't think they have 12 programs for Andy's issues. Any ideas?
            Report Abuse
            • Author by akmikeus (March 29, 2011 1:43 pm ET)
              2 15
              I'm thinking of a brass statue outside of MMFA offices. That way when Soros cuts off the funding in 2012, we can tear it down like the Iraqis did for the egomaniac Saddam.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by Old_Benjamin (March 29, 2011 2:50 pm ET)
                8 1
                That way when Soros cuts off the funding in 2012, we can tear it down like the Iraqis did for the egomaniac Saddam.


                You idiots just can't stop lying, can you?

                Disgusting POS...
                Report Abuse
                • Author by akmikeus (March 29, 2011 4:38 pm ET)
                  1 9
                  Disgusting POS...

                  Prisoner of Socialism?
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by Old_Benjamin (March 29, 2011 5:30 pm ET)
                    8  
                    Prisoner of Socialism?


                    WOW - you are posting from a prison cell in Sweden?

                    I notice you didn't bother to correct your bald faced lie? But that is what makes you an idiot AND a disgusting POS...
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by Andy Kreiss (March 29, 2011 7:02 pm ET)
                      7  
                      Boy, I hope Akmike and 1mg aren't planning on joining forces. That would be one scary formidable intellectual tag team. LOL ! Bless 'em for never tiring of putting on the big floppy clown shoes for our amusement.
                      Report Abuse
                  • Author by kabniel (March 29, 2011 7:36 pm ET)
                    4 1
                    amike

                    Mindless, brainwashed, Limborg minion of STUPID
                    Report Abuse
              • Author by onementalgiant (March 29, 2011 5:33 pm ET)
                3 7
                I was worried since there are no 12-step programs for inflated egos and snobbery.

                You've got a great idea but I think Andy should be the one to knock down his own statue. It's a form of therapy forcing oneself to confront whatever their issue is and the statue would be a form of his giant ego.

                BTW, what makes you think Saddam had a bigger ego then Andy?
                Report Abuse
                • Author by Andy Kreiss (March 29, 2011 7:04 pm ET)
                  6  
                  Do you even know what you're talking about anymore, 1mg ? You sound like a 12 year old girl.

                  BTW, did you ever come up with the names of any of those liberals who want to give terrorists the same rights as any American citizen, or can we just add that one to your ( ever-expanding) big list of lies ?
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by onementalgiant (March 30, 2011 6:59 am ET)
                      7
                    "Do you even know what you're talking about anymore, 1mg ? You sound like a 12 year old girl."

                    Well, coming from you dandy Andy, being called a 12-year-old girl is a compliment since you are such a pompous ass. It's probably the best comment your massively exaggerated ego has ever been able to muster. Also, twelve is clearly a few years older than your age (maturely - not chronologically) based on all of your constant juvenile insults (I mean facts per dandy's dictionary) you manage to include in your every post. What you need is a reality check of your believed self-importance. You could also use a good spanking since you act like a snotty five year old spoiled brat. Although, I'm fairly certain a good spanking probably wouldn't help you anyways.

                    Get over yourself Andy.

                    "BTW, did you ever come up with the names of any of those liberals who want to give terrorists the same rights as any American citizen, or can we just add that one to your ( ever-expanding) big list of lies ?"

                    All of you nutjobs agreed with Holder (pretend USAG) that Islamic terrorists should be tried in a civilian court instead of a military tribunal - that is until Holder finally figured it out that Gitmo should remain open for biz.


                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by mescal (March 30, 2011 8:16 am ET)
                      5  
                      Look what you've done now, gnatty. Your mom's going to have to wipe all that spittle off keyboard while you're at school, and hasn't she enough to do around the house already? This is how you treat a mother?
                      Report Abuse
                    • Author by Andy Kreiss (March 30, 2011 12:53 pm ET)
                      5  
                      Calm down, 1mg, you're sounding hysterical. I'm not sure where your little brain is coming up with all of this "egomaniac" and "self-importance" stuff. It's just some friendly banter on a website. Believe me, nobody here gets themselves too puffed up about being smarter than you.

                      Thanks for clarifying your remark about liberals wanting to give terrorists the same rights as all US citizens. As I guessed, it was another lie. I appreciate you finally coming clean on one. Thanks.I've made a note of it, one down,a hundred or so to go.
                      Report Abuse
                    • Author by Andy Kreiss (March 30, 2011 1:06 pm ET)
                      5  
                      ps, Gnatty, I'm guessing that you won't be able to figure this one out on your own, so I'm going to try, once again, the thankless task of trying to help you.

                      First, I want you to know that keeping Gitmo open is, to me, one of the big failures of the Obama administration. I won't bore you with the details, but I have done what I could as a citizen to let them know. That's what those of us who aren't blind followers do, try to keep the government in check, no matter who's in power.

                      As to your confusion about trying terrorists, I won't bother with the constitutional issues, as I know you wingnuts have no interest in the U.S. Constitution as anything but some strange misty totem.

                      Here's a more meat and potatoes angle for you. Good luck.

                      Military vs, Civilian trials for terror suspects.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by CoolSlaw (March 30, 2011 2:21 pm ET)
                        5  
                        You just got to love right wing binary thinking in action.

                        Right wingers want to hold suspected terrorists indefinitely, torture and coerce confessions from them, and convict them in secret military trials without a chance to defend themselves.

                        They even created a new brand of villain (enemy combatant) to justify this subversion of our constitutional legal process.

                        Anything less then that is "coddling" and siding with the (suspected) terrorists.

                        There is no in between. We have to act like a dictatorship and throw out due process, or we're "siding" with them.

                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by Andy Kreiss (March 30, 2011 8:02 pm ET)
                          3  
                          The only thing I'd take issue with in your post is the "Anything less than that ..." part. I know there's debate on the issue, but I've heard some pretty convincing cases for the position in my link, that civilian trials are more effective at dealing harsh sentences.

                          The zombies have been trained to believe, without questioning it, that military trials are needed, and civilian trials are somehow unacceptable.

                          They can't tell you why, they have no idea.

                          They probably have no idea how many suspected terrorists were tried in civilian court under GWB either. They just know they're outraged that the Kenyan Usurper is doing it.
                          Report Abuse
              • Author by kabniel (March 29, 2011 7:35 pm ET)
                3  
                amike

                Yeah and while you are dreaming about what you WISH were going to happen how about when the magical unicorns fly in to build you a golden swimming pool filled with champagne
                Report Abuse
            • Author by kabniel (March 29, 2011 7:33 pm ET)
              4 1
              1mentalmidget

              Yes since you LOVE being a liar and you LOVE being a moron the thumbs downs really are validations that you are reaching your objective. To be one of the most obnoxious morons on the block. Good luck with that
              Report Abuse
          • Author by Andy Kreiss (March 29, 2011 7:00 pm ET)
            7 1
            Well if getting thumbs down is considered "hitting a nerve", then I must be equaled to a 50,000 volt taser gun.


            Aw, ak, you're making a mistake here*. We were talking about the anonymous thumbs downs that "teh libs" get here, not the ones you get. They're different animals.

            People generally give thumbs down for things they don't like.

            Teh libs get thumbs down, presumably from the righties, for telling the truth, using facts and logic, and destroying the righty arguments.

            You righties get the thumbs down for the things we libs don't like : lies, confusion, dullness and stupidity.

            We get thumbs downs as a badge of honor, yours are demerits. I'm going to pre-empt your predictable protests here, as your response will probably be that my explanation is just my biased opinion.

            I'm going to assume you're stuck in the same fog as 1mg**, where you don't believe there's any such thing as objective truth, and explain the difference.

            If you read the thread, you'll see that every defense of Sammon has been decisively shot down. If you think I've missed something, please feel free to point it out.

            That is, you're wrong, and we're right. It's not just "two different viewpoints". It has been proven beyond a doubt that you ( and MagCynic and 1mg) are just completely confused and/or dishonest, and aren't capable of following the conversation here.

            So, you're more of a used up AAA battery than a 50k volt taser gun, Sorry, just the way it is.


            * I know this is like telling a plant it's making oxygen; it's a given, and the subject isn't likely to understand.

            ** Speaking of 1mg, he seems to have taken a fancy to you. Looks like somebody's shooting for the position of Beavis to your Butt-head. <3
            Report Abuse
              • Author by Andy Kreiss (March 30, 2011 1:15 pm ET)
                5  
                NO, the <3 was just to show how much I love the idea of you two becoming pals. Nothing gay at all, neither of you guys comes off as gay. Most of the gay guys I know are pretty bright and have great senses of humor.

                I hope your grandkids don't have to spend too much time with you, I like to have hope for future generations. You may have been raised to look down on anybody not exactly like you as "abnormal", but hopefully your grandkids will be a little more enlightened, and have a little more love for freedom.

                I fear for them if your condescending and hateful attitudes rub off on them.
                Report Abuse
            • Author by tspang (March 30, 2011 8:13 am ET)
              5  
              *I know this is like telling a plant it's making oxygen; it's a given, and the subject isn't likely to understand.

              Great line. I may have to borrow the metaphor.

              I have to say that the issue at hand is not complicated in the slightest, and I'm puzzled why some have so much trouble with it. They keep coming back here, so I'll just assume that they're still grappling with it.

              I'm here to help, so I'll simplify even further:

              1) FNC's claim: fair and balanced.
              2) Sammon's actions: decidedly NOT fair and balanced.
              3) What conclusions can we draw from this? (I realize that this is the hard part, so take your time.)
              Report Abuse
              • Author by Andy Kreiss (March 30, 2011 1:28 pm ET)
                4  
                Thanks, ts, but some of the kudos needs to go to my muse, the vegetative akmikeus. That couldn't have come to mind in a vacuum.

                It's sort of an "equal and opposite reaction" deal, where the stupider these guys get, the more they inspire us to find new ways to describe their stupid.

                Ak's second banana 1mg, for example, was recently going into another of his mindless rants about everybody who's smarter than he is being "condescending" and "egomaniacs". As boring as his whining is, it gave me the image of him going to the county fair every year and losing to the trained chicken that plays Tic Tac Toe.

                I'm still enjoying that image, picturing him training all year long, going to the fair with the Eye of the Tiger, thinking " This is my year!", but slinking off at the end of the night, tail between his legs, muttering " That chicken thinks he's so great!"
                Report Abuse
              • Author by Andy Kreiss (March 30, 2011 1:30 pm ET)
                4  
                Oh yeah, I agree, the topic is very simple. That's why it's so fascinating to see the hypnotized work their azzes off to make it complicated enough that they can deny reality.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by tspang (March 30, 2011 5:33 pm ET)
                  3  
                  going to the county fair every year and losing to the trained chicken that plays Tic Tac Toe.


                  Lol, is that from the Simpsons?

                  I detect the same pattern: They figure that if they can go on enough tangents, or throw up enough distractions, that they can avoid being utterly and completely wrong.

                  So by all means, let's endlessly nitpick as to whether "speculation" = "lying", or how MMfA treats FNC (I heard it on Hannity!), or how ALL sides are guilty of the same behavior or how this is really a small issue.

                  And I love how you are "arrogant" if you correct them.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by Andy Kreiss (March 30, 2011 7:36 pm ET)
                    2  
                    I believe they may have used a TTT laying chicken on the Simpsons, but it was a real thing, I remember seeing it as a kid. Some primitive program dropped food onto the appropriate square, so the chicken would peck according to the probability of winning.

                    Yeah, a lot of them got hung up on thinking that somebody was saying speculating and lying were the same thing. Of course, nobody said that.
                    Report Abuse
          • Author by kabniel (March 29, 2011 7:32 pm ET)
            5 1
            Amike

            You get thumbs down because the deranged stupidity of your posts is painful to our eyes. You are stupid, you are brainwashed and you are pathetic. An intellectual plague rat on your best day
            Report Abuse
    • Author by takemycountryback (March 29, 2011 11:20 am ET)
      9 2
      I love that more and more of these comments are getting the thumbs down. This means that republicans are coming here in droves because they can no longer deny the power of truth and their desperate need to fight it. Good job MM! You are getting under their skin.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by draftedin68 (March 29, 2011 2:10 pm ET)
        6  

        It may also be the $.03 per thumbs-down they're paid.

        Report Abuse
          • Author by kabniel (March 29, 2011 9:00 pm ET)
            5  
            1mentalmidget.

            What software, Ah well you are just a LIAR anyway
            Report Abuse
      • Author by HenHouse (March 29, 2011 4:21 pm ET)
        4 1
        I think folks are using the thumbs as bookmarks or checkmarks for things they have already reviewed.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by cyclemadness (March 29, 2011 11:22 am ET)
      10 2
      Any more doubts about whether Fox "News" is a news / journalistic enterprise? I hope not.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by tspang (March 29, 2011 11:54 am ET)
        17  
        WOW, I know! Catching a supposed "newsman" clearly admitting to skewing coverage in favor of Republicans is SO small potatoes!

        You can bet that if we were to flip this around to read "Top CNN Executive Admits Lying On-Air About McCain", this would cause so much right-wing outrage that they'd have to declare a wing-nut holiday.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by kabniel (March 29, 2011 8:10 pm ET)
          5  
          The sonic level of the snivelling and whining would knock the Earth off its axis
          Report Abuse
      • Author by kabniel (March 29, 2011 7:39 pm ET)
        4  
        Bmoron

        If you are really this stupid then get help
        Report Abuse
    • Author by The New Pilgrims (March 29, 2011 11:25 am ET)
      19 1
      I find the rumor that MagCynic likes to hump chihuahuas and little boys to be rather far-fetched.

      But we really should discuss it anyway, because after all, what if it turns out to be true?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Semprini (March 29, 2011 11:29 am ET)
        17 1
        I think it's important to note that he hasn't denied it.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by cripto9t709 (March 29, 2011 12:23 pm ET)
        9 1
        I heard the opposite.

        I heard the patriot likes being humped by chihuahuas.

        Now we have a controversy.

        Only one can be true.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by Mr Blifil (March 29, 2011 11:42 am ET)
      3 1
      Countdown to spurious FOIA request in 10...9...8...
      Report Abuse
    • Author by jupiter (March 29, 2011 12:12 pm ET)
      12  
      He wasn't lying. Just like I wasn't speeding.
      I was carelessly disregarding the speed limit.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by Andy Kreiss (March 29, 2011 12:22 pm ET)
        12  
        Are you sure you weren't mischievously speculating that the speed limit had been secretly raised ?
        Report Abuse
    • Author by erieavenue215 (March 29, 2011 12:44 pm ET)
      6 1
      I am up and ready, waiting to see just how much time PAPA BEAR Bill Oreilly spends on this story, is he going to send Jesse Waters out to interview him? Will he spend ONE MINUTE/SECOND even mentioning the story? The answer is, HE#l NO not in a million years the only way he will even mention this story is if it blows up and the rest of the media starts talking about it, than he will come with some lame excuse and defend it like he did with the whole Fox never said you will go to jail if the Health Care bill passes. KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK MMFA.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Don Quixote (March 29, 2011 1:30 pm ET)
      8  
      So... then.... if Fox Newspeak had even a tenth the integrity of NPR, they would be forced to fire him, like NPR did to their VP after the heavily cropped O'Keefe tape came out, no?

      Right.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by cugagcmu805031 (March 29, 2011 1:58 pm ET)
      6 1
      I see that the foxbots have decided to avoid facing the reality that Sammons and Fox are dishonest by coming here to defend the indefensible. They're quibbling about the difference between being mischievous and telling a lie and are failing to acknowledge that if someone pushes/promotes a "mischievous meme" based on inaccuracy, it's still misleading others, and it's still lying by deception. Sammons knew he wasn't being truthful when he created the meme. To any sane person this means he knew he was not only being mischievous, but that he was knowingly advancing a lie.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by liberalXtian (March 29, 2011 2:14 pm ET)
      8  
      NPR fires a man for telling the truth and a woman for.... (what did she actually do do get fired?), yet on Fox News they probably get big bonuses for lying.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by wookie294 (March 29, 2011 2:32 pm ET)
      7 1
      The lie worked beautifully for conservatives because Obama has been moving farther right in his policies. He's moved farther right, in part, to prevent people from thinking he's a "socialist." The Democratic leadership fears two things: being tagged as "another Jimmy Carter" or as a "socialist."
      Report Abuse
    • Author by sociocrat (March 29, 2011 3:29 pm ET)
      11  
      Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox Lies! Fox lies! Fox lies! Fox lies!

      Report Abuse
      • Author by liberalXtian (March 29, 2011 4:09 pm ET)
        7  
        Now don't hold back. Tell us what you really think.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by big_O_Other7415 (March 29, 2011 4:32 pm ET)
        7  
        L U D I C R O U S.

        I think these rightwingers are seeing themselves far too overexposed and I see them jumping all over progressive blogs to deny, deny, deny.

        The Kochs had to come out of their closet, too, because they were getting a lot of bad press. So now they have been forced to spend on PR campaigns in favor of themselves.

        Sounds like the beginning of the end for them.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by Andy Kreiss (March 29, 2011 7:08 pm ET)
        7  
        That's it, sidemount, let it all out... annnndddd... breathe. The nurse should be in with the happy needle any minute. How much unsupervised computer time do you get in a week ?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by onementalgiant (March 30, 2011 11:16 am ET)
            7
          The tips of my fingers are getting calluses. With dandy Andy presenting so much materiel showing his constant hypocrisy - plus I know he has me drifting through his extra large "brain" - I feel obligated to respond to at least half or so of his pompous posts about me.

          So Andy, can you offer ANY answers to sdemount's questions? "While we are on liberal BS where is all the outrage over $4 gas? Or why food prices have increased over the last 12 months? Expanded wars? Expansion of Bush policies? Obama wanting to reenact the Patriot act for 3 years with no debate? All the odd presidential executive orders? All the odd signing statements? Where is the outrage about all this stuff????"

          Remember now, you just criticized me for not answering ONE of your questions yet you won't answer ANY of sdemount's eight.

          Then again, instinctive hypocrisy is what leftists like Andy live and breathe so us normal folks understand how you get a pass for not answering any of the eight while hypocrite leftists slam me for not answering one.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by congero6189599 (March 30, 2011 11:40 am ET)
            4  
            For someone who doesn't have a lot of time to waste you sure find a lot of time to waste. Just sayin".
            Report Abuse
            • Author by onementalgiant (March 30, 2011 4:24 pm ET)
                4
              Ya know, I agree conger.

              I'm wasting WAY too much time on insignificant elitist pukes who mean absolutely nothing to me and mine.

              Thanks for reminding me I have a life. I'm serious.

              I will probably keep bantering with some of the more levelheaded folks here like you and a few others. But I’m done with the real nutjobs. Not worth the effort.

              OK dandy Andy and/or kabbie, go ahead with your predictable "quitter" or "OMG you are full of sh-t" or whatever.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by Andy Kreiss (March 31, 2011 2:00 am ET)
                3  
                Now I'm feeling kinda bad, 1mg. It says I have a reply, but there's nothing here, which leads me to believe you've been flagged too many times. What finally did it, the homophobia, the name-calling, or just the endless whining?

                Go lick your wounds, listen to Hannity for a few weeks, and get your confidence built up and your game face on. Just remember that definition of insanity, the one about doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
                Report Abuse
          • Author by Andy Kreiss (March 30, 2011 1:41 pm ET)
            4  
            Ummm, 1mg, that post had nothing to do with you. Get over yourself.

            Sidemount's questions were idiotic, that's why nobody's answering them. Chances are, s/he won't be around to address any follow-up ( we recognize the hit and run trolls, you may not), and the entire post was an incoherent rant based on nothing. The very first sentence is a confession that s/he doesn't understand the topic, why would you think somebody that confused deserves to be taken seriously ?

            But I'll take a little time just for fun. Let's look at the first question;

            While we are on liberal BS where is all the outrage over $4 gas?


            Can you explain what gas prices have to do with "liberal BS" ? A connection is implied in the question, but it's really gibberish.

            Who is "we" ? What is this "liberal BS" that sidemount suggest "we" are on ?

            Gas prices were over $5 a gallon during the Bush Reign of Error, do you think it would have been reasonable to ask somebody " where is the outrage over this conservative BS?".

            You live in the same world of lies that sdemont does, so the questions seem sane to you. I'd bet good money that sdemont, just like you, thinks everybody else is crazy too.

            If you can translate that first question into English, that would be a start. Take your time, I may not be able to get back here for a bit.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by Badtime (March 30, 2011 1:23 pm ET)
        6  
        Wow sdemonte, where do I begin? How about at the start of this wall of silliness. I don't know why I'm doing this - you aren't going to read it anyways.

        OMG, he is not confessing anything.

        No, he isn't confessing in the "Yes officer, I killed that man" sense. I would have more respect for him if he did. He merely admitted to purposefully promoting an unsubstantiated viewpoint, one that he himself did not believe. If you say stuff that you know isn't true and have no evidence to support, the dictionary says that it is a lie. No splitting hairs here.

        anyone who has read Obama's books or paid attention to his upbringing along with his religious beliefs and Obama is clearly an ultra liberal who would favor a socialist type government.

        First, you lie. I will come back to that. What I want to touch on is how a man's religious beliefs and his upbringing would indicate to you his political leanings in spite of the two years of non-ultra-liberal, non-socialist legislation that we have seen. Stop trying to portray our lawfully elected President as something other than American - it's disgusting and beneath us as a nation. Back to the part about you lying. I have read his books as well, and there isn't anything in those books that could even be loosely translated as "I can't wait to become president so I can destroy America" as the talking points would lead you to believe.

        This is no confession. It is a person who thought the socialism claim might have been far fetched but now realizes he under estimated Obama.

        Yes. It is a confession. Again, what do you want? Do you really need him to say the words like in a Hardy Boys book? He just admitted to intentionally deceiving his audience, and you know it based on your quote above. Where did you say you were from again? Oceana?

        As for all the Fox haters out there, guess what? All media lies, shocker.

        False equivalency. Firstly, all media does not lie. Moreover, that is not justification for Fox lying. But thank you for admitting that Fox lies as a matter of habit. It makes the rest of this go so much smoother - you should have put that at the top.

        If you notice MMFA had an agenda, discredit conservative bias in the news, right? What is their primary target now? Fox. Doesn't that stand to reason that MMFA knows that 99% of media is liberal biased and Fox is more right leaning

        You are terrible at things like reading mission statements. Obviously Fox gets a lot of attention because Fox tells a lot of lies. Fox is being targeted in the same manner that police target criminals. Don't break the rules, and you get left alone.

        Your second point, that 99% of media is liberal biased, is a lie. Most media is center and center-right. Your perception of liberal bias comes from your stance that is so far right that Mussolini would appear rational. Fox is rabidly right-wing to the point that anyone with a (R) next to their name, no matter how inept or blatantly self-serving, is endorsed and given air time.

        Now, does fox give Democrats a voice on their network? Yup. Does MSNBC have any conservatives on their channel as guests? Rarely if ever.

        No. Fox does not give Democrats a voice on their network. They invite Democrats on to insult, interrupt, double (or triple) team them, and berate them. It is a rare instance when Democrats are even allowed to speak without having false accusations slung at them. Do you even watch Fox?

        They all lie. All parties are full of crap. What is scary is more conservatives recognize those truths while liberals do not.

        Another false equivalency paired with some misdirection. Stay on the topic at hand (which is lying in the media, in case you forgot).

        Your last paragraph is nothing but misdirection, unsubstantiated claims, and ad hominem attacks. There is nothing of substance worth refuting so I am not even going to bother with it.

        Really, the entirety of your post can be summed up in these words: "He didn't say he was lying, but everyone does it especially democrats, so what?"

        Report Abuse
        • Author by Andy Kreiss (March 30, 2011 1:54 pm ET)
          4  
          Do you really need him to say the words like in a Hardy Boys book?


          LOL, good one, that cracked me up. The right wing brain really does need a sledge hammer.

          Nice of you to take the time, but you're probably right, this was just the venting and ranting of a lunatic who won't deal with any response.

          My favorite bit of Wingnut Logic-Style Logic Substitute may have been this part;

          MMFA had an agenda, discredit conservative bias in the news, right? What is their primary target now? Fox. Doesn't that stand to reason that MMFA knows that 99% of media is liberal biased and Fox is more right leaning? Yup.


          How do you reason with that sort of insanity? Let me try.

          The cops in Drugtown have an agenda, fighting crime. What is their primary target? Drug dealers. Doesn't it stand to reason that the cops know that 99% of muggers, burglars, murderers and shoplifters are law-abiding citizens, and drug dealers are more crime-leaning? Yup!

          Ow, my head.

          The really interesting part is how this rat's nest of lies and non-sequiturs impressed another confused liar as a list of hard-hitting and valid questions.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by HenHouse (March 29, 2011 5:00 pm ET)
      5 1
      isn't there a new rule that anything said by a repug in a different decade does not count? or in newt's case , a different month
      Report Abuse
      • Author by liberalXtian (March 29, 2011 6:45 pm ET)
        4  
        ....or a different wife.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by beDecent (March 29, 2011 6:35 pm ET)
        8 1
        Just because Beck says Soros is personally invested in MMfA doesn't make it true; individuals are allowed to do what they wish with their money given it's legal, and Soros' donation was legal and doesn't disqualify MMfA from 501(c)(3) status since Soros doesn't get anything in return--he just likes MMfA. Beck just doesn't like what Soros spends his money on, so he villifies him.

        MMfA does not attempt to influence elections, nor do they lobby--they document lies in the media. While seeing the lies pour from the right may sway some voters into voting Democrat, MMfA does not actively push for one candidate over another; ultimately, it's the voter's free will that decides elections.

        Did Beck tell you what Soros spent his money on in the 80s, stopping communism and spreading democracy?

        Now, I know you'll reflexively disagree with me, but just do some more research. You have the actual tax code there; now you can try and find some concrete evidence of MMfA violating that code, where you'll inevitably reach the conclusion that they do not.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by mescal (March 29, 2011 6:41 pm ET)
        8 1
        You just keep wondering that. Exposing the partisan propagandizing efforts of a supposed news organization does not constitute partisan activity. NONE of what you cited in your post is practiced by MMFA. Catching right wing liars lying is not in any way a violation of tax law. It just indicates how very desperate you are to silence those that expose your lying.

        MMFA has REALLY hit a nerve this time.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Andy Kreiss (March 29, 2011 7:13 pm ET)
          6 3
          You'd think if a person really thought that a certain organization that they hated was violating their tax status, that person would report it to the IRS, rather than reporting it to that very organization in a make-believe letter to the IRS.

          Of course, MMFA has a lot of enemies who are all much brighter than muffie, and I'm sure they've been trying for years ( I mean, they're smart enough to send their letters to the IRS to the IRS).

          Do you think muffie is smart enough to realize this, and that's why it posted its letter here, or do you think muffie is actually stupid enough to think this was a good method of reporting tax fraud ? It did address it's "clever" post to Mr. IRS Agent.

          Bless their lil' hearts, they try so hard.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by yoiksaway (March 29, 2011 7:03 pm ET)
        3  
        Yawn.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by kabniel (March 29, 2011 7:52 pm ET)
        7 1
        Ok your stupidity is also noted. Show us where MMFA tries to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities, work for or against any political candidates, or lobby in any way or go away.

        MMFA attacks conservative media misinformation. NOTHING they do is relevant to your pitiful attempt to portray the tax law. GOD but you people are desperate. This has already been explained many times. Try to keep up and stop wasting our time
        Report Abuse
      • Author by kabniel (March 29, 2011 7:54 pm ET)
        5 2
        wolve

        Given that you are too STUPID to know what the word socialism means. Given you have never in your LIFE had a thought that wasnt put there by Beck or Rush. The stupidity of your pathetic LIES can be forgiving by the vast majority of the human race NOT as stupid as you
        Report Abuse
      • Author by Andy Kreiss (March 29, 2011 8:08 pm ET)
        6 1
        Barcaks ? Lemme guess, this is another one of your "intentional" misspellings. Don't worry about being so late to the discussion, you've made it perfectly clear with this short post that you would have been incapable of adding anything of value.

        But you can run around the bases like the tykes do after the MLB games. Go, wolvy, make a home run!
        Report Abuse
          • Author by kabniel (March 29, 2011 9:04 pm ET)
            4 1
            Nothing unconstitutional about it you brainashed MORON. The Commander in Chief can DEFINITLY use our military this way. He cannot declare WAR. Only Congress can do that. I am betting you werent snivelling this way when Raygun INVADED Grenada without any sort of congressional approval.GOD but you are stupid and pathetic. Is it physically painful for you to be so stupid?
            Report Abuse
                • Author by kabniel (March 29, 2011 10:24 pm ET)
                  7 1
                  Medical school kids in danger is a flat out LIE

                  http://www.glynn.k12.ga.us/BHS/academics/junior/mitts/2005/keving16153f.htm

                  Regan administrator’s officials had falsely claimed that the island’s only operating airport was closed, offering the students no escape. In reality, numbers of people left the island on character flights the day before the U.S. invasion, nothing that there was not even a visible military presence at the airport and that customs procedures were normal. The students were not in any danger. Grenada and Cuban officials had met only days earlier with administrators of the American medical school and guaranteed the students’ safety

                  Report Abuse
              • Author by yoiksaway (March 30, 2011 1:18 am ET)
                4  
                "The Grenada invasion was based on an urgent need to protect the American students at St. Georges University."--wolvefun

                Ahh, harkening back to the days when the right cared about students. Such sweet and innocent times.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by SvenBoogie (March 30, 2011 4:22 pm ET)
                3  
                Whats a hoatage, troll?
                Report Abuse
            • Author by Adam West (March 29, 2011 10:48 pm ET)
              1 4
              False. The President can use the military to occupy a country. Attempting to overthrow a government is not the same as occupying.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by kabniel (March 29, 2011 11:04 pm ET)
                5 1
                You are WRONG. The War Powers Act makes NO distinction between occupation and overthrow. It speaks of hostilities. Also we DID overthrow the government of Grenada, WITH an invasion. By any reasonable definition it was much more of a military action than Libya.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by kabniel (March 29, 2011 11:04 pm ET)
                2  
                You are WRONG. The War Powers Act makes NO distinction between occupation and overthrow. It speaks of hostilities. Also we DID overthrow the government of Grenada, WITH an invasion. By any reasonable definition it was much more of a military action than Libya.
                Report Abuse
          • Author by kabniel (March 29, 2011 9:04 pm ET)
            3 2
            Nothing unconstitutional about it you brainashed MORON. The Commander in Chief can DEFINITLY use our military this way. He cannot declare WAR. Only Congress can do that. I am betting you werent snivelling this way when Raygun INVADED Grenada without any sort of congressional approval.GOD but you are stupid and pathetic. Is it physically painful for you to be so stupid?
            Report Abuse
          • Author by kabniel (March 29, 2011 9:05 pm ET)
            5  
            Also wolve

            It was not a mispeak. It was a LIE. It is small potatos to you since you are a LIAR
            Report Abuse
          • Author by kabniel (March 29, 2011 9:19 pm ET)
            3 1
            Nothing unconstitutional about it you brainashed MORON. The Commander in Chief can DEFINITLY use our military this way. He cannot declare WAR. Only Congress can do that. I am betting you werent snivelling this way when Raygun INVADED Grenada without any sort of congressional approval.GOD but you are stupid and pathetic. Is it physically painful for you to be so stupid?
            Report Abuse
            • Author by onementalgiant (March 30, 2011 7:29 am ET)
              1 4
              Hey kabbie, since you posted your message three times we figured you REALLY wanted someone to reply and I picked the short straw. So:

              Can you tell us MORONS why Libya was more important to invade then say, Congo? I already heard the "humanitarian" reasons but aren't the folks in Congo just as human as the folks in Libya? And something like 5 million people have been killed in Congo over the last five years vs. a few thousand in Libya. Does Libya have any gas or oil?

              We'll wait for your response.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by kabniel (March 30, 2011 4:05 pm ET)
                6  
                There is some kind of glich it just doubles up I dont know why but unlike a LIAR like you I wont make up a conspiricy theory to account for it

                No I dont. Ask the UN. I thought the world should do something about the Congo, and other countries in the region where those people have been being slaughtered for a decade or so long ago. There WAS no UN resolution to do so however for us to co-operate with. I think it a tradgedy like Rwanda.

                Can you LIARS and brainwashed cretins tell me why BUSH decided to tell lies to take us to war in Iraq instead of doing something about the Congo? I will await for your next lie and ignorance filled response.
                Report Abuse
          • Author by SvenBoogie (March 30, 2011 4:24 pm ET)
            4  
            "Mr. President, a troll on the comment section of a website who bases every opinion on fox news and thinks "irrelevent" and "hoatage" are words has a question for you..."

            Naw, lets skip it and ban you for trolling finally.
            Report Abuse
        • Author by onementalgiant (March 30, 2011 7:52 am ET)
            5
          "Barcaks ? Lemme guess, this is another one of your "intentional" misspellings."

          AGAIN Andy? You're doing it yet AGAIN? A sarcastic condescending post on something you yourself do regularly here? You get the free pass for your "intentional" misspellings while chiding someone else for the same exact thing.

          What is it that causes Andy to repeatedly do such things? Can he not remember from one day to the next? I give him the benefit of the doubt by attributing such occurrences to a mental disorder - which we all know can be considered a disease - thus is not Andy's fault. So please pity the poor slob, - er, snob.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by mescal (March 30, 2011 8:08 am ET)
            6  
            Oh, Jesus! Just wipe your eyes, blow your nose, and pull that lower lip back in. Get a freakin' hold of yourself, man!

            I swear... you have just GOT to be the biggest crybaby winger that I've ever read on this forum.

            I'm beginning to wonder if you're even in high school yet, because you really do seem to have the brittle, hormonal disposition of a middle school weenie.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by onementalgiant (March 30, 2011 10:27 am ET)
                5
              Ha ha. Lefties will never get it. They pi-s, moan, and insult on post after post after post after post then call me out for a few posts I deliver that challenge their warped comments. Dish it out but don't you DARE dish it back is their motto! You people really are a joke.

              You'd think more then one or two of the 50 or so that make comments here would have some sense of comprehension. But no, that's about it. Sadly, just a couple of them live in reality.

              BTW, The good news: At least the 50 lemmings that surf here won't be able to cast more then 500 or so ballots next election - except for those that live in Chicago. We all know they get a LOT more then 10 each.

              2BTW, I can't believe I haven't been barred as yet from posting here. I once again give kudos to MMFA for allowing me and a few other conservatives to state our opinions (yes, I know the difference between an opinion and fact/ reality/accurate statements - only dandy Andy has no opinions - just fact/reality/accurate statements because he is the Guru of Definitions for MMFA). So, for what it's worth, I appreciate the Staff of MMFA having some really thick skin to allow me to vent - THANK YOU MMFA!).

              3BTW, hang in there lefties. I can't continue to waste so much time here so things will soon taper off. I have too many tasks - the wife is recovering from surgery so I have to do ALL the chores which includes taking care of four dogs and three horses on top of all the cooking, laundry, housework, shopping, etc. I gotta have some plastic or metal joints replace some of my foot joints later this year and can't wait to get even with the wife having to do all the chores then!
              Report Abuse
              • Author by congero6189599 (March 30, 2011 11:09 am ET)
                6  
                Lets see how many violations of this code Sammons has violated. Can you count them or are they too many to count?

                SPJ Code of Ethics
                Download a printable copy [PDF]

                Preamble
                Members of the Society of Professional Journalists believe that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist's credibility. Members of the Society share a dedication to ethical behavior and adopt this code to declare the Society's principles and standards of practice.


                --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                The SPJ Code of Ethics is voluntarily embraced by thousands of journalists, regardless of place or platform, and is widely used in newsrooms and classrooms as a guide for ethical behavior. The code is intended not as a set of "rules" but as a resource for ethical decision-making. It is not — nor can it be under the First Amendment — legally enforceable.

                For an expanded explanation, please follow this link. Seek Truth and
                Report It
                Journalists should be honest, fair and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information.

                Journalists should:

                — Test the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error. Deliberate distortion is never permissible.
                — Diligently seek out subjects of news stories to give them the opportunity to respond to allegations of wrongdoing.
                — Identify sources whenever feasible. The public is entitled to as much information as possible on sources' reliability.
                — Always question sources’ motives before promising anonymity. Clarify conditions attached to any promise made in exchange for information. Keep promises.
                — Make certain that headlines, news teases and promotional material, photos, video, audio, graphics, sound bites and quotations do not misrepresent. They should not oversimplify or highlight incidents out of context.
                — Never distort the content of news photos or video. Image enhancement for technical clarity is always permissible. Label montages and photo illustrations.
                — Avoid misleading re-enactments or staged news events. If re-enactment is necessary to tell a story, label it.
                — Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information except when traditional open methods will not yield information vital to the public. Use of such methods should be explained as part of the story
                — Never plagiarize.
                — Tell the story of the diversity and magnitude of the human experience boldly, even when it is unpopular to do so.
                — Examine their own cultural values and avoid imposing those values on others.
                — Avoid stereotyping by race, gender, age, religion, ethnicity, geography, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance or social status.
                — Support the open exchange of views, even views they find repugnant.
                — Give voice to the voiceless; official and unofficial sources of information can be equally valid.
                — Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context.
                — Distinguish news from advertising and shun hybrids that blur the lines between the two.
                — Recognize a special obligation to ensure that the public's business is conducted in the open and that government records are open to inspection.


                --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                Minimize Harm
                Ethical journalists treat sources, subjects and colleagues as human beings deserving of respect.

                Journalists should:

                — Show compassion for those who may be affected adversely by news coverage. Use special sensitivity when dealing with children and inexperienced sources or subjects.
                — Be sensitive when seeking or using interviews or photographs of those affected by tragedy or grief.
                — Recognize that gathering and reporting information may cause harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance.
                — Recognize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than do public officials and others who seek power, influence or attention. Only an overriding public need can justify intrusion into anyone’s privacy.
                — Show good taste. Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity.
                — Be cautious about identifying juvenile suspects or victims of sex crimes.
                — Be judicious about naming criminal suspects before the formal filing of charges.
                — Balance a criminal suspect’s fair trial rights with the public’s right to be informed.



                --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                Act Independently
                Journalists should be free of obligation to any interest other than the public's right to know.

                Journalists should:



                —Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived.
                — Remain free of associations and activities that may compromise integrity or damage credibility.
                — Refuse gifts, favors, fees, free travel and special treatment, and shun secondary employment, political involvement, public office and service in community organizations if they compromise journalistic integrity.
                — Disclose unavoidable conflicts.
                — Be vigilant and courageous about holding those with power accountable.
                — Deny favored treatment to advertisers and special interests and resist their pressure to influence news coverage.
                — Be wary of sources offering information for favors or money; avoid bidding for news.

                --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                Be Accountable
                Journalists are accountable to their readers, listeners, viewers and each other.

                Journalists should:

                — Clarify and explain news coverage and invite dialogue with the public over journalistic conduct.
                — Encourage the public to voice grievances against the news media.
                — Admit mistakes and correct them promptly.
                — Expose unethical practices of journalists and the news media.
                — Abide by the same high standards to which they hold others.


                --------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                The SPJ Code of Ethics is voluntarily embraced by thousands of writers, editors and other news professionals. The present version of the code was adopted by the 1996 SPJ National Convention, after months of study and debate among the Society's members.

                Sigma Delta Chi's first Code of Ethics was borrowed from the American Society of Newspaper Editors in 1926. In 1973, Sigma Delta Chi wrote its own code, which was revised in 1984, 1987 and 1996.
                http://spj.org/ethicscode.asp
                Report Abuse
                • Author by onementalgiant (March 30, 2011 3:53 pm ET)
                    5
                  Yeah, I know I provide you loonies' lots of laughs. I can tell by all of the nice friendly replies I get from all of you. No anger or insults from you enlightened elitist lefties, eh?

                  Chimp? Once again a pretty good compliment from pompous dandy Andy. One of his gentler and kinder posts. He has such difficulty lowering himself to the level of the unwashed.

                  Any bets this smug puke wears one of those girly pink berets with his ponytail - stumbling around in flip-flops after token' a few joints? Ah, never mind; let him play.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by Andy Kreiss (March 30, 2011 8:12 pm ET)
                    4  
                    So now I'm an effeminate hippie, and that's your grand finale "zinger"? Are you 12 years old, or a hundred ? Hippies ? Seriously ?
                    Report Abuse
      • Author by SvenBoogie (March 30, 2011 4:19 pm ET)
        3  
        Flagged for trolling, not that MMFA will do anything about it... sigh...
        Report Abuse
    • Author by Adam West (March 29, 2011 10:39 pm ET)
      1 8
      This whole story depends on who you think is trustworthy.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by kabniel (March 29, 2011 11:05 pm ET)
        7  
        No it doesnt. Sammon admitted he did not BELIEVE what he was saying. He was LYING. It really is that simple
        Report Abuse
          • Author by Andy Kreiss (March 30, 2011 12:22 pm ET)
            4  
            ...those logical fallacies you guys throw around like you are the only ones who understand them.


            I don't think you're doing a very good job of proving otherwise here.

            Report Abuse
          • Author by progusa (March 30, 2011 1:53 pm ET)
            3  
            Hey Adam, didn't you play Batman in the '60's?
            Report Abuse
          • Author by kabniel (March 30, 2011 4:16 pm ET)
            4  
            Yes it IS an admission of lying. Do you even know what farfetched MEANS? It means you dont believe it. When you are saying something you dont believe to be true it is LYING. It really is that simple

            No he didnt have any instances that supported the speculation enough to make them believable which is why HE DIDNT BELIEVE THEM. Is this really too complicated for you?

            The arguments we are making are not false they are in fact definitive. The appologies you wingnuts are making are not only specious but incredibly STUPID.

            There are no logical fallacies in my answer. I am sorry you arent bright enough to know what a logical fallacy is.

            For instance the false dillema or false dichomoty is to pretend that only two extremes are possible. That there is no third alternative. This in no way applies to the situation where we are saying he made claims he didnt believe thus he was lying. You really arent very good at this
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Adam West (March 30, 2011 6:15 pm ET)
                3
              For instance the false dillema or false dichomoty is to pretend that only two extremes are possible. That there is no third alternative. This in no way applies to the situation where we are saying he made claims he didnt believe thus he was lying. You really arent very good at this.


              I saw someone arguing that Sammon was lying because he was not telling the truth. I am not going to go through all 500 comments to find it but that is a false dilemma argument. Disregard it if you feel necessary, it won't hurt my feelings.

              Your argument is even more idiotic because you are LYING. Sammon never said he didn't believe what he was saying, he said he found it far-fetched. HE DEVELOPED A THEORY HE THOUGHT WAS FAR-FETCHED AND PRESENTED REASONS AS TO WHY HE DEVELOPED IT. You should stop taking what Sammon said out of context, it makes you look like a LIAR.

              Nicolaus Copernicus probably thought the idea that Earth revolves around the Sun was far-fetched. Does that make him a liar?
              Report Abuse
              • Author by kabniel (March 30, 2011 7:12 pm ET)
                5  
                No I am not lying. You are just both stupid and desperate. If he thought it far fetched that means he did NOT believe it was true. Were he to believe it to be true it would NOT be farfetched. Are you going to keep twisting logic into a pretzel to miss this OBVIOUS fact? What is idiotic is, well you, and the lengths you will go to appologize for this obvious LIE.

                You are also very uninformed. All learned people in the world knew the Earth revolved around the sun millenia before Copernicus. It was taught by the Preists at Sais in Egypt. The Sumerians knew. What Nicky probably thought was he better hedge his bets so he didnt end up an enemy of the Church.

                If you are saying something publicly you dont believe, which is the very essence of thinking it farfetched then YES. You are a LIAR. this really could not be any simpler
                Report Abuse
            • Author by Adam West (March 30, 2011 6:24 pm ET)
              1 2
              Also far-fetched means something is not readily believable. Readily means with out delay.

              So in essence, far-fetched means that AT THE MOMENT it is not believable. At the moment does not take into consideration, lets say, 5 months.

              So technically, within 5 months a far-fetched idea can become believable.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by mary59 (March 30, 2011 7:03 pm ET)
                3  
                Actually, you aren't as logical as Adam West, so we hope you will stop impersonating him. He understands that he is not really Batman or Bannigan.

                Loved your all-caps defense of why Sammon isn't really lying. That's a classic. Please keep it up, thanks.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by Adam West (March 30, 2011 9:45 pm ET)
                    3
                  The all-caps was a sarcastic because kabniel does it all the time. I am surprised you were unable to grasp that.


                  Wait.


                  No I'm not.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by mary59 (March 31, 2011 12:07 am ET)
                    4  
                    "The all-caps was a sarcastic because kabniel does it all the time."

                    Great stuff, please continue. With practice, you too can get on that right wing wacko cruise ship.
                    Report Abuse
              • Author by kabniel (March 30, 2011 7:17 pm ET)
                4  
                And when it becomes believable AT LEAST TO HIM, then and only THEN, will it not be a LIE when he says it. Actually the very idea Obama is a socialist is pure nonsense and only someone too stupid to know what Socialism is could possibly believe it unless they are just comitted to an astonishing level of self delusion.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by Badtime (March 30, 2011 9:12 pm ET)
                2 1
                So in essence, far-fetched means that AT THE MOMENT it is not believable.


                So he was only lying AT THE MOMENT? Good to know.

                I know that it's far fetched, but one day Sean Hannity will be convicted of a hate crime. It may not be true AT THE MOMENT, but it can be one day!

                See what I did there? According to your standards, I'm not a liar.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by kabniel (March 30, 2011 9:32 pm ET)
                  3 1
                  I am thinking I should go around telling everyone that Adam West molests small furry animals. It may be farfetched but no one has proven it is NOT true and perhaps in five months or so photos will appear. Thus it would not be a lie.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by Adam West (March 30, 2011 10:09 pm ET)
                      2
                    I would like to respond to that because you say the dumbest things, however, I am unsure what point you are trying to make.

                    You are the kind of person that would call a person who said they saw a UFO a liar because aliens haven't been proven to exist.

                    I wish I was a simple enough person to label everything that has not been proven as a lie. However, I like doing this thing called thinking outside of the box.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by kabniel (March 30, 2011 11:58 pm ET)
                      2  
                      You are a LIAR. I am in fact not that kind of person. I am the kind of person who would call someone a liar who said that UFOs landed in Roswell then told me he found the very idea of UFOs farfetched. I wish you werent so stupid. Then you could think PERIOD. In a box out of a box, higher brain function itself.

                      If you were capable of such a thing you would see my point above is that I took your EXACT argument to show how pitiful and weak it was.

                      I dont label EVERYTHING that has not been proven a lie. I DO know that those who spew things they dont believe are LIARS. This is actuall quite simple
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by Adam West (March 31, 2011 8:28 am ET)
                        1 2
                        You are too dumb to realize that your argument made sense. That is how they conduct a murder investigation. They find a suspect, and 5 months later after finding enough evidence convict or release that person.

                        When a person says an idea is far-fetched they are relating it to the rest of society.

                        Even if someone did see UFO's land in Roswell, they are right to say the idea of UFO's is far-fetched because they cannot readily prove to the rest of society that UFO's exist.

                        Same with Sammon. Him saying his idea is far-fetched does not mean he doesn't believe it, he is merely saying he understands why other people have trouble believing it.

                        Why is that so hard to understand.

                        Also, calling people stupid and liar does not make you look any smarter or your argument any more concrete.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by mary59 (March 31, 2011 11:37 am ET)
                          4  
                          Unless you are Sammon, and trying to explain why you said what you did (and we'd tend not to believe your new interpretation of your remarks)

                          You're pretending to know what was in Sammon's head when he made his remarks to put them in the best possible light.

                          It's sad, really.

                          Report Abuse
                • Author by Adam West (March 30, 2011 10:01 pm ET)
                    3
                  Your example is different because you are pondering future events, but the premise is the same.

                  The chances of Hannity being convicted of a hate crime are 50/50. So let me ask you this, is it a lie to say he wont be convicted, or a lie to say he will be convicted?

                  You can't exactly lie about something that hasn't occurred yet either.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by Badtime (March 31, 2011 12:00 am ET)
                    3  
                    I spy a false choice here.

                    Either Mr. Sammon is not lying, or he is merely predicting. Neither of these premises are true. He is either lying or he isn't. By the definiton of the word lie, Mr. Sammon was not telling the truth, hence, lying.

                    Here is an example since crayola is necessary for you.

                    It would be a lie if I intentionally portrayed a picture about you that isn't based in reality with the intent to deceive.

                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by Adam West (March 31, 2011 8:34 am ET)
                        3
                      I spy a false choice.

                      Just become something is not true, does not automatically make it a lie.

                      What about embellishing? Is that lying?
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by mary59 (March 31, 2011 11:35 am ET)
                        3  
                        Re-read badtime's post again. You didn't get it.
                        Report Abuse
                      • Author by Badtime (March 31, 2011 12:11 pm ET)
                        3  
                        Yes. Because something isn't true, it is a lie.

                        Yes. Embellishment is lying. How hard is this for you to get?
                        Report Abuse
                      • Author by Badtime (March 31, 2011 12:11 pm ET)
                        3  
                        Yes. Because something isn't true, it is a lie.

                        Yes. Embellishment is lying. How hard is this for you to get?
                        Report Abuse
                      • Author by Badtime (March 31, 2011 12:11 pm ET)
                        3  
                        Yes. Because something isn't true, it is a lie.

                        Yes. Embellishment is lying. How hard is this for you to get?
                        Report Abuse
                      • Author by Badtime (March 31, 2011 12:11 pm ET)
                        3  
                        Yes. Because something isn't true, it is a lie.

                        Yes. Embellishment is lying. How hard is this for you to get?
                        Report Abuse
                  • Author by kabniel (March 31, 2011 12:02 am ET)
                    4  
                    You CAN lie about something that hasnt happened yet. IF you say I have every intention of going to the library tomorrow when you KNOW you have no intention whatsoever of doing so you are LYING about going to the library. If you are claiming something is true that you in fact do not BELIEVE is true you are lying. Even a five year old should be able to understand this
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by Adam West (March 31, 2011 8:42 am ET)
                        3
                      You are such a rock. You are comparing apples to oranges.

                      Me speculating on what SOMEONE ELSE is going to do is not the same as you speculating on what YOU are going to do.

                      When I say Sean Hannity will commit a hate crime, no one (including Hannity) knows if this will ever happen.

                      When you say you are gonna go to the library, you are the ONLY person who knows if you are actually going to go.

                      I have more substantial arguments with my TV.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by mary59 (March 31, 2011 11:33 am ET)
                        5  
                        You are very thick--or deliberately being obtuse.

                        The man is just "speculating" he says. In reality, he realizes that he's just making stuff up to make Obama look bad. He knows it's far-fetched but hopes his audience will believe it,which many do.

                        That's lying, no matter how you try to frame it.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by Andy Kreiss (March 31, 2011 11:49 am ET)
                          3  
                          A debate, just like a sporting event, is best when the opponents are evenly matched. No wonder he does better with his TV than with real people.

                          I wonder if he ever turns the TV on and argues with commentators, or just argues with the dark, silent box.
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by mary59 (March 31, 2011 12:49 pm ET)
                            5  
                            Some of them really fancy themselves as good at over-talking as their television heros. Not a very high goal.

                            Thanks for the b-day greetings the other day, btw.
                            Report Abuse
                          • Author by Adam West (March 31, 2011 2:48 pm ET)
                            1 3
                            Good one Andy Kreiss.

                            I'm glad to see that, since you were unable to formulate an argument, you just reverted back to your tactics of challenging others' intelligence.

                            Just goes to show why a TV has more substance than you.

                            Please come back with a witty comment very soon.
                            Report Abuse
                        • Author by Adam West (March 31, 2011 2:42 pm ET)
                            3
                          OK?

                          In reality, he realizes that he's just making stuff up to make Obama look bad.


                          Really? Where did Sammon say this? Are you making it up to make him look bad?

                          Truth and Lie determined by how far-fetched an idea may be. Far-fetched ideas are just harder and take more time to prove.

                          I like how I have not said once that Sammon was telling the truth, but all of you act like I agree with his idea.

                          He very well may have been lying, but in no shape or form is him saying it was far-fetched an admission thereof.

                          It would be cool if just once on this site a liberal would disagree with the message Media Matters is trying to convey.

                          I won't hold my breath though.
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by Badtime (March 31, 2011 5:07 pm ET)
                            5  
                            No. Truth and lies are determined by one question:

                            Is it a fact? If it is not a fact, and you promote it, you are lying. How hard is this for you to grasp.

                            You yourself just admitted that you never said that Sammon was telling the truth and that he "very well may have been lying". Apparently you DO get it.

                            Please stop talking, you are making my head hurt.
                            Report Abuse
    • Author by okami (March 29, 2011 11:47 pm ET)
      8 1
      yippee-kai-yai-yay, tribble-top.

      i can order a copy of my birth certificate from Austin that's the size of a credit card or driver's license. it's good enough for anything legal, and proves my own birth and citizenship to boot.

      what Obama's posted is just as good. it was enough to get him through thousands of background checks by political, criminal and intelligence organizations, before he was elected.

      there's no need for anything more. the birthers just can't stand Obama's skin color, is all. and moreover, the fact that he has one white parent makes it far, far worse.

      i've lived around that kind of racism all my life. i see it for what it is.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by sandman67 (March 30, 2011 6:27 am ET)
      4 2
      I'm from the UK so find this, and the whole content of the site, truly disturbing.

      See over in the UK, where you Americans like to parrot we dont have this mythical FREE SPEECH, news media such as the BBC and ITV pride themselves on impartial reporting of news. No "opinion", just facts as good as they can report them. (NB I dont include the print media in this, just the terrestrial news feeds). Newspapers are openly slanted, but we accept that as buying a paper is a choice. We still trust our TV and radio news remains impartial.

      If and when it is revealed that news has been slanted and distorted it causes a major public outcry. Offenders, when caught, are sacked. On occasions there are political enquiries and government intervention through relevant departments, and action taken to make sure that the public remain informed in an impartial manner.

      In the UK overt propogandising of the news like this would see rapidly falling viewer figures, and action taken against the offenders. There have been a few cases like that, but very few.

      Maybe that is why over in the UK we resist Murdoch when he tries to monopolise the news and broadcast media. Maybe thats why over in the UK our politicians happily call out Beck for what he is...a racist bigot, and decry the fact that he is shown on UK cable TV, albeit without any advertisers AT ALL. Maybe thats why in the UK our airwaves are free of the poisonous haters and serial liars like Limbaugh.

      If you guys cant see how corrosive this permitting lies and distorted news is to your society and political system, and the very clear damage it is causing, then you really are daft and I pity you.

      Still, there is a silver lining to all this.

      As long as Murdoch continues his shabby shell game of lies and deciet, it means that he has no chance of ever doing the same to our news media in the UK, because politicians and public alike long ago during the Wapping protests worked out what a scumbag he is, and will never allow him his TV news monopoly this side of the Atlantic.

      Time to wake up and smell the coffee guys. You have allowed a tax dodging Aussie scumbag with the morals of a sewer rat to rip apart the founders "Great Experiment". Your public is ill served and worse informed as a result, and drowned in a sea of slanted opinion sold as impartial fact. Murdoch and his tatty crew have cynically exploited your admirable principles of free speech and free markets, laughing all the way to the bank as they burn down the house.

      Now....what are you gonna do about it?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by wizbing (March 31, 2011 9:08 pm ET)
        3  
        Excellent commentary, thanks. I have also lived in the UK and Canada and these frauds pretending to be journalists would not be allowed on the air there. Even the bogus "he said , she said" style journalism on the major tv networks, ABC, NBC and CBS, shoddy, lazy, cowardly reporting, would not be tolerated in Canada or Britain.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by Greencat_left (March 30, 2011 1:16 pm ET)
      5  
      Sorry, dude. President Obama isn't an ideological extremist. But you definitely are.

      All your psychological projection and smarmy insinuations don't justify your tactics.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by MB141 (March 30, 2011 2:03 pm ET)
      7 1
      The most shocking thing about this post is the fact that a group of conservatives actually travelled outside the country! I hope they enjoyed a little culture in the middle of all that hatred and propaganda...
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Andy Kreiss (March 30, 2011 8:09 pm ET)
        3  
        Har! I didn't even think about that. Do you think any of them got off the boat, ever ?
        Report Abuse
    • Author by rrastro (March 30, 2011 5:04 pm ET)
      3 1
      the shoe is on the other foot and oh how they squeal
      Report Abuse
      • Author by kabniel (March 30, 2011 8:10 pm ET)
        4  
        I dont know what this is even supposed to mean. What shoe? Whose foot? I smell the stupid but I dont get the reference
        Report Abuse
    • Author by Kllgg (March 30, 2011 8:44 pm ET)
      4  
      Hell, the guy lied a few times in that clip ("government takeover of healthcare", "Obama seeks out Marxists", etc..)
      Report Abuse
    • Author by twinpeaksandvalley (March 31, 2011 11:37 pm ET)
        3
      I think it's good to have more opinions, if they are backed up. No one will ever know who is ultimately right. It's the point of views that determine who's right and wrong for you.
      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

About the Blog

Feed Icon
  • County Fair is a media blog featuring links to progressive media criticism from around the Web as well as original commentary, breaking news and rapid response updates to major media events from Media Matters senior fellows and other staff.