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.

















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.
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:
[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?
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
Try reading before typing...
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.
Reaching there, Mag. Really, give it up. Sammons was lying and he knew he was lying. He admitted it in the tape.
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.
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
I posted at the time that it would make an old man of you.
Sorry I crash when I try to insert the link.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
"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?
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...
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.
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?
Simple sentences are the key to communication with them.
I'm sure everything you wrote flew right over the patriots head.
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".
Not the same thing as far-fetched, Mag.
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
far fetched
Synonyms: doubtful, dubious, far-fetched, flimsy, questionable, unapt, unlikely
The term far-fetched and its manifestations are also discussed here.
What DOES matter is that Sammon thought it WAS far-fetched, yet advanced the premise all the same.
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.
The only experts with dealing with hard core RWAs are professional deprogrammers who usually work with cult members. I wonder why?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
And speaking of lying, when are you going to apologize for falsely calling Shirley Sherrod a racist?
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.
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.
God but you are pathetic. Keep shovelling your pathetic lies. You are hiliarous.
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.
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.
The most literal definition is that is a lie.
The admission is that they don't report the news, they try to mold it.
adj.
Not readily believable because of improbable elements therein:
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!
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.
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?
[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.
Hardly surprising to hear a Fox "News" executive bragging about his contributions to the cause in front of a conservative audience.
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.
Those who level the socialist charge against Obama are just echoing talking points and exposing their ignorance.
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
I mean, you could lean in a direction without being something, right?
Backpedalling has already begun.
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.
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?
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…)
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 ?
You are a LIAR. Anyone with a single functional braincell knows you are a LIAR and the garbage you just spewed was a LIE
For the anatomy of a lie, see my web site at http://FoxNewsLies.net
Nice try though.
If somebody walks into their local grocery store and steals a tomato, they may be dishonest - but that doesn't make them a liar.
no, it makes them dishonest AND a thief.
if you tell someone something you do not believe that makes you dishonest AND a liar.
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.
Do you know what the definition of hypocrite is?
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.
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.
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.
Lies are justifiable and easy to pick out. I think what we're seeing here is "slander".
Maybe, but this is one lie for which we have a recorded confession.
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?
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.
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.
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.
My 4 year old can understand that, why can't the average Faux News troll?
Thank you, freedoms, for that bit of candor. Most right wingers aren't so up-front about their sociopathy.
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.
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.
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.
What I think Sammon said was ridiculous. I just didn't think it was a lie.
Sammon knows this. He lied.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
MODEST EMBELLISHMENT somewhere near the middle, and --
AUDACIOUS BUG-EYED WHOPPER at the far right.
Where else?
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.
The heck with Sammon. Where do you cruise to for that kind of money?
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.
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."
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."
"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.
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""
He prefers the only other explanation,"idiot". Please respect his wishes.
For example, 1mg wrote above;
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.
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.
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.
Deliberate misrepresentation of facts is lying. Qed.
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?
And if Fox News stopped telling lies, then they would stop making appearances on this site.
Do you think this is reasonable behavior for an unbiased journalist?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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-
Nailed it again! No wonder I drive you bonkers, I know you better than you know yourself.
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.
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 ?
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.
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.
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.
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.
FOX NEWS - We Distort, You're Deceived
I'm hope Bossman Sammon receives his walking papers soon. He's just as bad as Cheatwood.
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.
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.
Poor kabbie needs some anger management counseling. Think he'd agree to 12 step help if we intervened?
GOOD. That means I will be spared the horrific stench eminating from the rotting remnants of what is left of your soul.
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
What I need is for kabbie to stop posting!
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.
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?
You get wingnut bonus points for the gratutious Soros reference!
Congrats!
It's a lie to say that he is. There's no evidence that he is.
If Fox is this dishonest in this one instance, when does it become more like their nature and less like a coincidence?
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
Strawman encountered.
Quote from Bill Sammon:
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.
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 ?"
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.
BTW, I don't think they have 12 programs for Andy's issues. Any ideas?
You idiots just can't stop lying, can you?
Disgusting POS...
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...
Mindless, brainwashed, Limborg minion of STUPID
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?
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 ?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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.
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.)
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!"
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.
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.
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
It may also be the $.03 per thumbs-down they're paid.
What software, Ah well you are just a LIAR anyway
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.
If you are really this stupid then get help
But we really should discuss it anyway, because after all, what if it turns out to be true?
I heard the patriot likes being humped by chihuahuas.
Now we have a controversy.
Only one can be true.
I was carelessly disregarding the speed limit.
Right.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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;
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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?"
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;
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.
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.
MMFA has REALLY hit a nerve this time.
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.
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
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
But you can run around the bases like the tykes do after the MLB games. Go, wolvy, make a home run!
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
"I can't recall selling missiles to Iran's Ayatollah"
"I can't recall funneling illegal drug money to the Contras"
"I can't recall funding an illegal war"
"I can't recall having higher disapproval ratings than Barack Obama"
"Basically, when you try to hold me accountable - I am senile and can't remember my name"
- Ronnie "Rayguns" Reagan who STILL has higher disapproval ratings compared to soschulist Obama.
I find it funny that the deity of modern Right Wing Authoritarians had a HIGHER DISAPPROVAL RATING WHEN COMPARED TO JIMMY CARTER.
Obama and Carter BOTH beat him in highest approval ratings.
But that's alright because he couldn't remember his way to the bathroom when he was president. Probably always smiling because he just made poo poo in his pants and Nancy is going to give him a treat for not smearing it on the oval office walls.
Ahh, harkening back to the days when the right cared about students. Such sweet and innocent times.
It was not a mispeak. It was a LIE. It is small potatos to you since you are a LIAR
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.
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.
Naw, lets skip it and ban you for trolling finally.
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.
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.
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!
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
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.
I don't think you're doing a very good job of proving otherwise here.
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
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?
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
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.
Loved your all-caps defense of why Sammon isn't really lying. That's a classic. Please keep it up, thanks.
Wait.
No I'm not.
Great stuff, please continue. With practice, you too can get on that right wing wacko cruise ship.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Just become something is not true, does not automatically make it a lie.
What about embellishing? Is that lying?
Yes. Embellishment is lying. How hard is this for you to get?
Yes. Embellishment is lying. How hard is this for you to get?
Yes. Embellishment is lying. How hard is this for you to get?
Yes. Embellishment is lying. How hard is this for you to get?
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.
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.
I wonder if he ever turns the TV on and argues with commentators, or just argues with the dark, silent box.
Thanks for the b-day greetings the other day, btw.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
All your psychological projection and smarmy insinuations don't justify your tactics.