Fox & Friends left the "FNC" out of "FNC Tax Day Tea Parties"
SUMMARY: Gretchen Carlson repeatedly stated that Fox News will be "covering" the tea party protests, while Steve Doocy claimed "Fox isn't sponsoring" them. However, Fox News has labeled the protests "FNC Tax Day Tea Parties" and has aggressively encouraged participation in them. Additionally, The Fox Nation will reportedly "host[] a virtual tea party."
On the April 13 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, co-host Gretchen Carlson repeatedly stated that Fox News will be "covering" tea party protests, planned across the country on April 15, while co-host Steve Doocy claimed, "Fox isn't sponsoring any of this stuff. We're just realizing there are a lot of people across the country who are not happy with the tax situation." However, Fox News is not simply "covering" the tea parties, which the channel has often described as primarily a response to President Obama's fiscal policies. For instance, Fox News' new website, The Fox Nation, will "host[] a virtual tea party" for those who "[c]an't get to a tea party," as Bill Hemmer noted on the April 11 edition of Fox News Watch. Fox News has also repeatedly labeled the protests "FNC Tax Day Tea Parties" and has aggressively encouraged participation in them. Indeed, during the April 13 segment, Doocy directed viewers to TheFoxNation.com, which he stated "details exactly where Fox will be on tax day, how you can get involved. It'll put you in touch with the local people, as well."
During the segment, Doocy also stated that Fox News contributor Michelle Malkin, "who is on this program a lot ... has detailed a number of [the tea parties]." However, Doocy did not mention that Malkin is also among the "Tea Party Sponsors" listed on TaxDayTeaParty.com.
As Media Matters for America has repeatedly noted, in dozens of instances, Fox News has provided attendance and organizing information for future tea party protests, such as protest dates, locations and website addresses. Fox News websites have also posted information and publicity material for protests, and Fox News hosts have repeatedly encouraged viewers to join them at several April 15 protests that they are attending and covering. During the April 6 edition of Glenn Beck and the April 9 edition of Your World, on-screen text characterized these events as "FNC Tax Day Tea Parties." Tea party organizers have also used the planned attendance of the Fox News hosts to promote their protests, and Fox News has also aired numerous interviews with protest organizers.
From the April 13 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:
CARLSON: One of the things that people are doing to kind of combat feeling bad about this current situation is what's going to happen on tax day, April 15th. It's this week. Well, some people are organizing these tea parties now. They're going back to the past of 1773 when, of course, this actually happened in Boston when the colonists dumped all that tea over the sides, so Fox is actually going to be covering this.
Let's take a look at all the hit shows here at Fox that are going to be covering the tea parties across the country coming up on the 15th. We've got Neil Cavuto out in California. We've got Glenn Beck in San Antonio, Sean Hannity in Atlanta, and Greta Van Susteren in Washington, D.C.
PETER JOHNSON JR. (Fox News legal analyst): Hmm-mm. And I think you guys will be talking about it as well.
DOOCY: Absolutely, so check it out on Wednesday. Right here on Fox & Friends, we're going to be kicking things off throughout the day. And Fox isn't sponsoring any of this stuff. We're just realizing there are a lot of people across the country who are not happy with the tax situation, and it sounds like people are going to be taxed more going forward.
I think it really kind of started with that guy over at the money channel, Rick Santelli, who was talking about how it was unfair how, you know, with the bailout and people were being rewarded for bad behavior, and it was time for a new tea party. And then they started having them, different locations across the country. I know Michelle Malkin -- who is on this program a lot -- she has detailed a number of them.
And then a lot of them got together and said, why don't we coordinate, so that on tax day, we try to send a big message? And we know of at least 500 cities that are going to have tax tea parties on tax day.
CARLSON: But which politicians will show up? That's going to be the question, 'cause so far only two have had the guts, I guess you could say, to come forward and say that they're actually going to be there: Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina and Congressman John Culberson of Texas -- both Republicans -- who say, yes, they will be there to support these tea parties. Will the mainstream media cover these tea parties? I think they may be forced to --
DOOCY: Well, they are --
CARLSON: -- now.
DOOCY: They're making fun of them.
CARLSON: Well, we'll have -- so we'll have to see which slant they take for it. House speaker -- former House Speaker Newt Gingrich [R-GA] will also be in attendance at one of these tea parties. But it'll be interesting to see in the next couple of days how many other politicians decide to sign on. Are they treading lightly because they're waiting to see, "Hmm, I wonder how this is going to be taken?"
GUY: Well, I think it's touched a nerve in America.
DOOCY: Sure.
JOHNSON: And a lot of people are speaking about this. I know a lot of people over the weekend in my house and people I was seeing were saying, you know, what's this really about? Is this going to catch on? Well, it's going to catch on in terms of people talking about the subject. No one is talking about a revolution. No one is talking --
DOOCY: Sure.
JOHNSON: -- you know, about violence --
DOOCY: No.
JOHNSON: -- in some fashion. People are talking about speaking out on this issue. And it's lighting up the Internet --
DOOCY: Sure.
JOHNSON: -- online sales with regard to the products associated.
DOOCY: 'Cause there's a ton of them.
JOHNSON: You know, and people are just kind of going crazy with this. But they see it as an opportunity to speak out.
DOOCY: Sure.
CARLSON: Yeah. A lot of it's grassroots effort, Peter.
JOHNSON: Absolutely.
CARLSON: I mean, I interviewed four moms who put together the whole thing in Orlando, Florida. They didn't know it was going to turn into a big deal. So they consider themselves just the average --
DOOCY: Right.
CARLSON: -- citizen.
JOHNSON: But we don't have primaries this year. And --
DOOCY: That's right.
JOHNSON: -- I think people were ignited by the primaries --
DOOCY: Sure.
JOHNSON: -- and the opportunity to organize and to speak out --
DOOCY: Right.
JOHNSON: -- and I think that there's been a hiatus in that.
DOOCY: That's a good point.
JOHNSON: And people want to speak out in the area of so much frustration.
DOOCY: And we should point out it's on both sides. You know, organizers were not thrilled with the amount of money that George W. Bush spent as president. But then, when they look at, OK, Barack Obama is going to have -- this upcoming budget is $3.6 trillion, isn't that four times what George Bush had suggested?
So that's really fanned the flames. And if you -- if this really bugs you, go to our new website, it's called TheFoxNation.com. You know, we've got Fox News, where you have the news, and then you've got TheFoxNation.com, where it's all about opinion.
JOHNSON: It's exciting. It's exciting stuff.
DOOCY: And what do you think about it? It also details exactly where Fox will be on tax day, how you can get involved. It'll put you in touch with the local people, as well. So TheFoxNation.com.
From the April 11 edition of Fox News Watch:
HEMMER: April 15th is Wednesday. That's not just tax day this year in America. While the mainstream media has ignored the tea party movement, here at the Fox News Channel, we're gearing up to bring you special coverage of the events all across the country. Sean Hannity is in Atlanta. Glenn Beck is at the Alamo. Where else would he be? San Antonio. Neil Cavuto is live in Sacramento, and Greta is in Washington, D.C.
Can't get to a tea party? Fox Nation hosts a virtual tea party. You can check it out on the site for the location of a tea party in your area. Again, that is Wednesday, the 15th of April.
Plus, our coverage has already begun at FoxNews.com. We've got you covered. We hope you will be with us on April 15th.
This is bizarre. It is like watching a big long infomercial.
Fox News talking heads look ridiculous with this contrived banter of, "this is sweeping the nation", "everyone is talking about it", "it slices, it dices and cleans my laundry!"
Now they're selling t-shirts, too.
Ya know, I could have sworn that Fox News & their right wing allies were telling us just a few short years ago that protesting against the U.S. president at a time of war was un-American and unpatriotic.
I guess that only applies to REPUBLICAN presidents?
Let's take a look at all the hit shows here at Fox that are going to be covering the tea parties across the country coming up on the 15th. We've got Neil Cavuto out in California. We've got Glenn Beck in San Antonio, Sean Hannity in Atlanta, and Greta Van Susteren in Washington, D.C.
Even Greta has sold her soul, well I guess she sold it when she was covering Natalie Halloway while the Bush administration lied and commited war crimes.
I expect nothing but lies from Hannity and wacky anti Obama lies from Beck.
if you find fox news so annoying change the channel. You have a WIDE variety of liberal stations to choose from. I mean there is abc, cbs, nbc, cnbc, msnbc, cnn, cspan, pbs and comedy cenral just to name a few. So why bother with fox news? did you know that direct tv has a channel that shows the top shows watched on the east coast (probably because I live on the east coast) and in the national and fox iswatched more than any other news show always? Now if you people are watching just so you have something to complain about then I would guess you have no one to blame but yourselves because you are giving them the ratings. How else do you no what they are reporting about?
Not True at all you do not have lot choice Abc Nbc Msnbc Cnn Cspan and PBs are not liberal Comedy central is just comedy show There no Liberal Media at all
Logically all the "liberal" stations you mentioned are corporations who exist to profit. Every corporation, with very few exceptions, are conservative organizations. It's ludricious to think that any of the "stations" you mentioned would put idealogy before their profits. Think about it.
Defending Fox News' blatant misnformation is an exercise for fools and idiots. It is a purely partisan message delivery vehicle -- nothing more, nothing less. Owning up to their rank partisanship would be the ethical things to do, and few would object. Check this out for more proof of their role in partisan politics as described by a GOP strategist.
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/gop-admits-it-owns-fox-dont-misunderestimate
As someone who will be attending one of these Tea Parties, I have to say a few things. Number one item, I think, is that it's not a bunch of republicans who are standing up and saying anything -- this goes WAY accross all party lines -- Dems, Repubs, Libertarians, Independents, all parties are standing up and screaming right now! This country started with a protest! If we feel something is wrong we stand up and say so..... I don't recall Fox news saying that it's unpatriotic to protest Bush or any other president. It has nothing to do with democrat or republican.... It has to do with right and wrong! It is wrong for President Obama to spend like there's no tomorrow, to step in as president and fire a head of any private business, to bad mouth the country he's president of, to not stand up and do or even say something when an American flagged ship is taken by pirates, etc., etc.! I'm so tired of the Obama Messiah tribute 24/7 on the liberal media sites. Name one news organization that has even bothered to try to cover any of the tea parties that's happened.... they see it as a black mark against President Obama, as far the news organizations are concerned he's the greatest thing since sliced bread.... makes them all quiver at the knees and lose their freaking minds.
Do you have any example of a tea-party that is NOT organized by Republicans?
I can't show an example of any one party organising any tea party -- If you look closely at the tea parties though you can find people of every political party at them. I think that speaks volumes. Frankly, I didn't bother ask what party the organisers are with -- I just know that it's time for us to stand up and let our voices be heard. Can you give a valid reason why someone shouldn't attend a tea party? How about why someone shouldn't speak out? Or maybe you'd just like for us to shut up and let President Obama bring us straight into the solcialist society that he seems to be craving?
Yes. These "tea parties" are Republican events, driven by false information about not yet proposed tax laws, but mostly by an irrational hatred against Obama.
Someone who does not want to be a pawn in the GOP propaganda, earns less than $250k, and is willing to give Obama more than 3 months in office before declaring him a failure and a socialist should not attend.
Can you give a valid reason why someone shouldn't attend a tea party? How about why someone shouldn't speak out? Or maybe you'd just like for us to shut up and let President Obama bring us straight into the solcialist society that he seems to be craving?
The So Cal society? I love So Cal !
I'll give you a good reason not to go-- to not look like an idiot, especially since 95 percent of people are getting their taxes CUT this month.
a fox news party poll not only says that only 36% of those polled might show up, it also said that only republicans were in favor. Dems and independants not so much. When ya boil it down, you've got a right wing sponsored event courtesy of right wing think tanks and right wing radio and news setting up right wing venues to appeal to right wing crowds while they make millions selling right wing t-shirts and bumber stickers to protest a tax cut for anyone making less than $250,000 a year while they stand around calling Obama everything but the N-word.
That's an all out lie -- I saw the same thing.... it in no way said that the dems and independents were not in favor.... They aren't pounding the pavement as hard as the Repubs, but they are out there pounding it just the same! They are coming out, speaking out as well! Maybe you should stop Lying and trying to spin this to make Repubs look bad.... get off the liberal soap box and speak the truth!
As I said, not so much in favor. You'll get a smattering few dems and independants, that is all. But we'll know the truth tomorrow when the list of speakers becomes available and we'll see once again that it is just a long list of right wingers with maybe a smattering few tokens, but rest assured, my bet is on 95% rightwing republican speakers. No spin there, mr. tea time.
I'm not a republican -- I'm a ticked off independent - So it's not some right wing conspiracy to whine and complain --- As for me slinging lies.... make you shoud put down the kool-aid and actually read some news or refer to old campaign blips --- the longer the campaign went on the lower the amount of dollars it took for you to be "Evil Rich" and be taxed as such. I do have to say -- I am willing to listen to anyones point of view, we all have the right (until Obama changes that) to say what we want, unfortunatly Liberals don't give anyone else the same benifit. You either fall in line step with a liberal or your made out as some right wing nut job who is feeling hurt because they lost the election --
So you're the token independant. Good for you! But why are you continuing to spout right wing conspiracy theories about Obama coming to take your rights away if you're so independant?
I said what I said because it's the truth.... If you remove the blinders or rose colored glasses, do your own research, if I'm so wrong then prove me wrong ----- I'm not talking about quoting some media organization - I'm saying do your own research and prove me wrong if you think your so right.
Actually, since you're making the assertions, it's up to you to prove them.
You prove his point so well. You must have your head clogged up from all the time you spend with it stuck in the sand.
Not voting doesn't make you an independent.
I vote every time there's an election.
http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2009/04/the-rotting-racist-underbelly-of-the-tea-party-protests/
I don't recall Fox news saying that it's unpatriotic to protest Bush or any other president. -toni
Then you weren't paying attention. Hannity practically coined the phrase "Why do you hate America?"
It is wrong for President Obama to spend like there's no tomorrow
And yet you probably never said a word when Bush was doing it last year. Your outrage is so phony.
to not stand up and do or even say something when an American flagged ship is taken by pirates,
Now I know you don't pay any attention to anything except Fox news and right wing radio, as this was resolved yesterday, and covered everywhere all day, thanks to navy Seals acting on orders from their Commander-in-Chief. You are a waste of time.
"And yet you probably never said a word when Bush was doing it last year. Your outrage is so phony."
So does that mean you were ourtraged when Bush was spending 1/3 of what Obama is putting out in deficit dollars, but once Obama went in it's okay? does that make you three times the hypocrite that you claim TeaTime is? Justwondering...
Bush never included the wars in his Budget, so I'am sure your projections don't include it either, Bush's spending got us int this mess ,Obama's spending is to get us out of it. Does it make you a hyprocrite that you never protested Bush's spending ? I'll look for your post here to that effect.
You can't spend your way out of debt......
Regan proved deficits don't matter...
Reagan didn't run and spend trillions of dollars..... That would be a big reason why Obama is bad for the country.
No, but Reagan did run up the national debt, leaving the future generations to pay for it. Of course, it took a Democrat to clean up the messes left behind by Republicans who believe that borrowing and spending is much better.
Sure you can. In fact, it is a well-known method of doing it, and it's done every day. Student loans, car loans, etc. You owe money, you spend money to earn more money, you pay back what you owe.
The difference between the current spending and Bush's spending is that Bush borrowed without any plans to pay back, and without spending it on things that actually generate revenue in the future.
That's why you and the others' claims about spending now is so incredibly phony.
The deficit is what we're taling about .. no budgets.. the deficit includes war spending.. it's obama's budget that is going to triple the debt.
Now i know you don't know what your talking about? What you just posted makes no-sense, especially in light of Obama's talk today.
she likes talking herself into circles, like a dog chasing his tail.
This post is part of what I'm talking about below -- Name calling get one so far in the chat world.
Where's the name calling? Saying that someone is running in circles (a/k/a circular logic) is akin to a dog chasing its tail. Where's the name calling there?
You right-wing folks really like to play the victim, don't you?
WAAAAAAHHHHHHH!!!
Looks to me like you need a diaper change, Tea Time.
Those budgets numbers you're citing are baloney, and you know it. Back it up with some actual statistics, or acknowledge that you're full of it.
From the WaPo.. you people eat up the smoke and mirrors crap. quarupiling the budget deficit and then pledging to cut THAT quadrupiling in half still leaves us about 3 times over what the bush deficit was. Read- it's good for you brain. dont' just swallow the kool-aid. The peopel who double the price to give you a half price sale must love you for your stellar mathematical abilities.
forgot to add, if you're capable of interpreting a graph, you'll note the actual deficit declined from 04 through 07- the 08 numbers were reflective of the earlier bailout rescues of the banks and those wonderful GSE freinds of Frank and Dodd. if you look at the projected values, the "out years" will really start to rock and roll in 2012 so even if you use 2012 as the end point, it's STILL nearly double the bush deficit left from 08. Hope you really like paying taxes to cover all that and that your kids like it even more.
Also forgot to add,
The 08 numbers were for the "Bush" budget, not Frank and Dodd's. They didn't sign the bailout bill, Bush did.
Also, if you prefer that your kids have a job in a stable and safe and productive country, then taxes are absolutely necessary and any red blooded patiotic American should want to pay them.
MIssDee,
I believe you and the WaPo are comparing apples to oranges. The Iraq and Afghanistan wars were not included in the Bush budgets, they therefore are not included in the accounting of the "Budget" deficit.
Obama on the other hand is including them in the budget. Therefore his budget deficit will be much larger.
It's a nice accounting trick, but isn't real.
And MissDee was talking about smoke and mirrors - she's the one using the information which is using smoke and mirrors..
Gotta love the smell of a hypocrite in the morning...
Obama has been handed a crappy economy headed into depression, and being that the government is the only entity that can generate stimulus at this time, I don't have a better idea than he does, do you? Or perhaps you'd prefer to do nothing or keep cutting taxes on the rich, because that has worked so well up to this point, hasn't it? Wait, it got us here!
Meanwhile Bush had a surplus handed to him, cut taxes on the rich for 8 years, ignored warnings that terrorists were going to attack, and took us into a war of choice based on lies, and never put it in the budget, and we're where we are because of his policies.
So the situations are just the TEENIEST bit different, wouldn't you say?
But conservatives are only now complaining about deficit spending, BECAUSE it's deficit spending, and yet said nothing for 8 years while Bush doubled what every previous president had spent. That's my point.
What else ya got?
you obviously dont' read well either. convenient how you forget we were attacked on 9-11 when it suits your pruprose and a lot of money was spent in the "War on terror", a term thta you revisionists dont' allow the use of for fear of offending those who want to kill us. read the graph. the height of the spending on the war, and hence the deficit was 2004. it declined through 2007 and then rose again with the bailout of the beloved GSE's and other financial crap that you dem's wont' own up to owning a large stake in. Obama didn't "inherit" it. he ran after it,so that crap doesnt' wash either. he spent four years in the senate doing nothing to help the problems, So no sympathy rom me. And your point about Bush ddouble the deficit when Obama's going to triple or quadruple it? stop drinking the kool-aid.
Wrong again MIss Dee, please read my post above.
and you're smarter tha the CBO? prove it.
10yr. budget projections are BS
What about Bush's cost for the war not considered in deficts projections under Bush you don't understand?
I didn't say I was. You are wrong though in comparing apples to oranges, like I said above.
It's not about being smarter than the CBO. It's about seeing through your BS.
We see through it. You're not convincing anyone. And when you don't convince people, you start calling people names.
The war was not considered in the budget and were not part of the deficit projections under Bush. What part of that don't you understand?
You're the one with the comprehension problems, either that or you're intentionally trying to rewrite history. Either way, you fail, because people around here have memories, and are able to put things in context. The Wars weren't included in the offiical budget under Bush, they will be under Obama, hence a big part of the discrepancy. Problem is, the money was still borrowed (from the Chinese) and spent, so it's still real. And of course I remember 9-11, but you seem to forget it happened on Bush's watch, it was HIS failure, he either wasn't paying attention, or he was, and let it happen anyway. So he was either a negligent babysitter, or a malevolent despot who sacrificed his own people for his selfish gains (and given PNAC's goals, that's not out of the question). So we had to go to Afghanistan because of his negligence, plus the hit to the economy 9-11 caused by itself, then got lied into Iraq, where a trillion dollars will be spent, probably more, all of which is Bush's fault. And the laissez-faire attitude that republicans champion of no regulations, most notably McCain and Phil Gramm, left the crooks unchecked on Wall Street (although the dems participated too much in that) which led to a recession that started in, say it with me now, December 2007, over a year before Obama took office of President. not to mention the numerous financial institutions that failed BEFORE the election, and the TARP bill was signed by the Boy King Bush, not Obama, who was a senator in the minority party for 2 years, then in the majority when Republicans set a record number of filibusters in the Senate for a minority party in a single term, obstructing getting anything meaningful done. I don't know what kind of power you think he had at the time.
Now I believe you were going to make up some more crap in defense of your failed ideology and misspell it all for us?
thanks to navy Seals acting on orders from their Commander-in-Chief. You are a waste of time.
Did you hear how FOX tried to frame the rescue yesterday? That Obama listened to his advisors (!)
I don't recall Fox news saying that it's unpatriotic to protest Bush or any other president
Other than calling anti-war protestors traitors? I guess you weren't paying attention.
"...to not stand up and do or even say something when an American flagged ship is taken by pirates,..."
We will be waiting for your retraction.!
"...If we feel something is wrong we stand up and say so..... I don't recall Fox news saying that it's unpatriotic to protest Bush or any other president..."
So while Bush was running up debt,imprsioning Americans without trial,torturing, lying us into a war in Iraq etc.etc. you were alright with it? But a return to the Clinton era top tax-rate of 39.6% which didn't bankrupt us but saw record expansion and growth with the creation of a surplus ,now it's time to take the the streets. A 2% difference??? Heck, the top rate under Reagan was 60%, and he raised taxes several times and created record deficits. EVery Republican has, only Clinton balanced the budget! No one is against your demonstrations,go ahead most of us just find them ridiculos and hypercritcal and basically anti-Obama, funded and cheered on by the usual right-wing billionaires. Faux and other media outlets critizied those against the Iraq was an Bush policies as anti-troops and pro terrorist, and I've never seen so-called journalist or news stations promoting anti-government protest? Can you name one other than FAUX?
"...to step in as president and fire a head of any private business,.."
You do realize that alot of this bail-out money was authorized under GB? You call these private businesses but aren't they getting government money? I think we should have a say, since where footing the bills!
"...to bad mouth the country he's president of..."
To me that shows who YOU reall tea-party folks are? Only a parisan Republican/conservative could twist what Obama said over seas as badmouthing the country! A mixture of those who claim he's not a citizen and a secret Muslim. Those who believe the "welfare Queen" myth,and despite 10,000 people showing up for 1,000 positions that the main problem is people are lazy and don't want to work. You claim that this is a demonstration of real Americans and not one sponsored and led by partisan forces doesn't pass the smell test:
"
Additionally, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram reported yesterday that Texas Gov. Rick Perry and Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) will be appearing at tea party protests as well. Rep. Denny Rehberg (R-MT), Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA), and Rep. Tom Rooney (R-FL) have also been urging their constituents to attend tea party protests while Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) is sponsoring a bill in Congress to honor the protests.
In his New York Times column today, Paul Krugman writes that “it turns out that the tea parties don’t represent a spontaneous outpouring of public sentiment.” Instead, Krugman notes that a key role in organizing the “AstroTurf (fake grass roots) events” is being played “by FreedomWorks, an organization run by Richard Armey, the former House majority leader, and supported by the usual group of right-wing billionaires.”
Above quote from thinkprogress.com
anti-tea party at all locations there tea party rallies . 90$ of all americans taxes will go down under president obama's plan please be at a rally in your area check the tea party web site for locations and times starting on the 15 th please pass it on
Tea Time: Please see my Reply to you, below.
Additionally, President Obama had the good sense to keep his mouth shut about the Somali pirates until the situation was resolved. I realize this is a new concept here in the US of A, but it's a new day.
Sheer Insannity said many times it was unpatriotic to comment negatively about President Bush. This "emboldened" the enemy in time of war, etc., etc.
If the US government owns 80% of a business it is no longer a "private business." Any 80% shareholder has the right, and the obligation and duty, to guide executive management. That's called responsibility. President Obama did not "bad mouth" this nation. He said many positive things about it. He did state we'd made some mistakes. That's a fact. Period.
Why is it ok for you to stand up if you feel something is wrong and say so - but our President shouldn't? Huh?
Regarding media coverage of the Tea Parties - I'd said Faux Noise had certainly taken care of that for all of it.
You're right. Obama's handling of the Somali pirate situation was stellar. Obama did the right thing, kept his mouth shut, did what needed to be done and the situation was taken care of.
Bush would have said, "Bring it on!"
Oh, wait, he did say that.
"Name one news organization that has even bothered to try to cover any of the tea parties that's happened.... " - Tea Time
Hard to cover what hasn't happened yet . . .
This is the difference between the Fox Comedy Channel and other {legitimate} news outlets: legit news outlets cover events AS THEY OCCUR - not cover events they're SPONSORING in advance.
There have been tea parties going on for a couple of months now.... So, yes - there is a lack of media coverage that is going on.
It has to do with right and wrong!
You folks wouldn't know right from wrong if it bit you on your happy butts!!!
This so called "protest" isn't about taxes or anything else. This so called "protest" is just an opportunity for losers to whine because you can't accept that YOU LOST THE FREAKING ELECTION!!!
That's exactly what it is, Pearlene. The righties just cannot stand the fact that (1) a Democrat was elected to the White House; and (2) that said Democrat is an African-American.
So basically it's just a bunch of community organizers?
Are you related to the Koch family, by any chance?
You're a f#*&ing idiot.
First of all, didn't Obama send in the U.S. Navy to rescue the ship captain that was being held hostage? And wasn't that mission a complete success? Obama did step up and do his job regarding the American flagged ship and the pirates. Sounds to me like he did well on his first 3:00 AM phone call. Where were you? My guess is that you were probably watching porn in the basement of your mom's house.
President Obama is not "spending like there's no tomorrow". If you have a better plan to get us out of this economic mess, by all means, step up and let's hear what you have to say, since you're obviously way smarter than the president himself. Sorry, but lowering taxes and cutting spending is not the answer, especially when there is no real spending going on right now. In order for the economy to work, there must be spending. Since we aren't doing it enough, the government will help. Your side's 'do nothing' policies would help us continue down the path of economic crisis.
Where were you when GWB was spending like a drunken sailor on shore leave? How much money did he waste in Iraq (not to mention lives)?
Obama didn't bad mouth the U.S. If you indeed listened to what he said, instead of the snippets given to you by Fox, you would know that what he said was that there was arrogance on both sides and that it needs to stop (nutshell paraphrase). In what way did he bad mouth our nation?
As for the firing of the head of GM, let me ask you this: If you were the president and you were giving BILLIONS of dollars in a bailout to GM, and you knew that the head of GM was making billion dollar mistakes, wouldn't you, as part of the conditions of receipt of the bailout, make it necessary for the head of GM to step down? I don't know about you, but if I were to make such mistakes at my job, I'd be fired in a heartbeat - and not by the president, but by my boss.
You're a wuss. You're the kind of American who complains, maybe votes, but for the most part, you do nothing but complain because a Democrat is in the White House.
Get over it. Your worthless team lost the election. Let someone else have their hand at fixing the mess your idol, GWB, left for us.
Speaking of Cavuto...
Cavuto: Fox Covered The Million Man March In 1995, Even Though The Network Didn’t Launch Until 1996
"We're just realizing there are a lot of people across the country who are not happy with the tax situation, and it sounds like people are going to be taxed more going forward."
So who is this "lot of people"? Those making over 250K a year?
I'm curious what Reagan fans think of this. After all, he raised taxes and tripled the national debt.
"We're just realizing there are a lot of people across the country who are not happy with the tax situation, and it sounds like people are going to be taxed more going forward."
After all the lies fox told during the election they actually have the nerve to make that claim?
Check the newest tax the rich plan -- it's 250K.... it's more like 80K a year, it may be less now. And I'd like to post a question here..... When the heck did it become a federal crime to be rich? It thought that was a part of the American Dream --- It's seems now that it's almost a federal crime to have made something out of yourself and to actually be well off or rich..... I guess some would be much happier if we all sat on our couches and just waited for the government to take care of us while we draw our welfare. Don't get me wrong, I see nothing wrong with welfare for those people who truely need it. I however do disagree with when generations of of a famly live on and don't try to make anything of themselves! My whole point in posting was just to say..... Be prepared when it's your turn to shell out your own hard earned money when he can't get all he wants from the "Rich"!
What "80k" plan are you talking about?
Your speech is nothing new here. Nobody's saying that there's something wrong with being rich. They just happen to be a group of people that can afford to contribute more, and so they should. And it's not like that extra 3% is going to make them anything but rich anyway.
afford to contribute more.. so by your logic, someone who's single can "afford" to contribute unpaid overtime at work than someone with a family? is tht how your illogic works?
I think you're taking the phrase "time is money" too literally here. You can't create a direct comparison between the two concepts. Everyone has the same amount of hours in a week to work with, and everyone needs some time to do their own thing whether single or not. I'm really not sure how you made the leap to unpaid overtime, on top of it.
What I'm saying is very simple. Someone with more disposable income can afford to give more in taxes. Is that concept really that difficult or offensive to you?
I'd like to post another question here - when did becoming stupid give you the right to lie about the tax plan? Post that $80K lie so we can see it. I want to see the modified federal budget introduced by Obama that you claim exists.
I love this bedweting from the right. "when did it become a federal crime to be rich?"
You know what's great about being rich? Even after paying taxes...you're still rich.
You know what sucks about being poor? Even if you pay no taxes...you're still poor.
Handsome Pete: For years it has been my contention that Progressives favor welfare for individuals who need it; Conservatives favor welfare for corporations, whether they need it or not...
That seems to be their MO, newzhound.
Maybe we should get Keith Olbermann to sponsor such an event? It's time O'Reilly went away...
I have yet to see anyone even suggest that there's no right to protest.
There are many things that people have rights to do, but still aren't appropriate. Republicans denounced war protests at VA hospitals, which didn't mean that they were (necessarily) suggesting that the protesters didn't have the right.
And another straw baby is born.
terrapin53: Please see my Reply to Tea Party - No, this country was not founded on protests.
Yeah, as a matter of fact it was --- Until the protest started we were colonies not a country.
Why not? They already have a virtual Alice (van Sustern) and a real Mad Hatter (Beck).
cant be that kidn of tea party- I doubt Harry "the white rabbit" Reid or Nancy "the RED queen" Pelosi will be attending. However, there's a chance tweedle dumb and tweedle three-dollar bill Mathews and Olbermann might show up for laughs.
Glory days, indeed...
In other words, the world has come full circle and Faux Noise has become a giant, television-based community organizer...
Is this what their advertisers signed up for?
You want to see "Bow Tie" Tucker Carlson pole dance?
Wow!
yeah, that would ruin my reputation
Has a so called "news organization" ever promoted a political protest before? Can't think of an example.
Here's a "packed" (their claim!) pre-tea party video from Dallas. I tell you, the overwhelming size of these all white protests is shocking!
I was watching youtube videos of several events that already happened, one item in common seems to be tearing up paper and throwing it into a vat of tea. Anybody know what's on the paper? Is it perhaps copy of a government printed tax return?...
Off topic - Just wanted to say "Hi" to all my old friends.
Hey, welcome back!
10q!
However, I doubt I'll be spending much time here anymore.
I decided on the spur of the moment to give it up for Lent and during those 40 days in desert feel that arguing with everyone here has not been that productive for me and I have aquired a few new tasks that will take up most of my day.
It's been fun. I wish everyone well.
I see my typing has also not improved! *sigh*
AA: You acquired a few new tasks? A job?
Not a new job... Just doing the work of three instead of two. :-)
How American of you! Bush would be proud (if he cared).
jmj,
One can still qualify for a tax cut but think that taxes are too high... Plus they will have to rise later on if we ever will be able to pay off the staggering and still growing national debt.
So I doubt it is so much about the current tax situation as a protest in general against more government spending and more taxes and more debt.
Just my two cents.
so let's pay for what we can now, instead of just piling on the debt.
My suggestion would be to cut back spending. But that will never happen.
The alternative, as I see it, is to go on as we are doing until the whole system collapses.
I think everyone is kidding themselves if they think the government can spend borrowed money to offset cyclical recessions.
i would agree to cut spending, but that's still not enough. we also need tax revenue.
Isn't that what Reagan did? Wasn't there huge inflation and economic stagnation? Didn't St. Ronnie borrow and spend us into eternity?
"One can still qualify for a tax cut but think that taxes are too high... Plus they will have to rise later on if we ever will be able to pay off the staggering and still growing national debt."-- Another American
That's odd; I thought the argument always was that lower taxes result in MORE government revenue. So shouldn't tax cuts DECREASE the debt? At most, shouldn't the tea parties be pushing for spending cuts, not tax cuts?
Or is this just an admission that the right-wing only believes in UPPER-CLASS tax cuts as the cure for everything?
My quote about increasing taxes was made with the idea that neither party cuts spending.
I'm all in favor of tea parties pushing spending cuts. I'm also in favor of tax cuts.
I heard today is tax pay-off day. If I heard it correctly, according to someone's calculations, that if the average American started paying his taxes at the first of the year, the 2009 taxes would just now be fully paid.
These supposed "regular" people tax-protest are the same people who voted for McSame/Palin and wouldn't support Obama anyway! They just don't make sense. Check out Paul Krugmans take:http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/13/opinion/13krugman.html?_r=1
So, in your opinion, is McDonald's the best restaurant in America?
I figured that I could post here and have honest debate -- I guess I was wrong -- This is a site where liberals come to gripe, coplain and just plain pat each other on the back for electing someone who is bound and determinded to destroy the constitution and everything the founding father set up.... I'll be back to chat when the stuff hits the fan and your great Obama Messiah is seen for the charlotine he truely is!
You come here and immediately fling out lies and insults against Obama and then whine about not getting an honest debate, finishing with another lie about Obama destroying the constitution (bush and wiretapping - ring a bell?). Heck, you even refused to back up the lie about a new $80K and above tax. You weren't interested in an honest debate, that was clear from the beginning. Now go have your silly little right wing tea party made by the right for the right. You lost the election, and we on the left have a lot of work to clean up the mess 8 years of your side made.
Clinton started the wire tapping -- Bush used it and got boned for it ---- Maybe you should get your facts straight.
Yeah, all those changes to wiretap americans that were approved of after 9-11 were done by Clinton. Got ya.
It ain't typical. When confronted on their BS they play victim and run. Never responded except to cry foul.
I play piano like that too! It should read...Ain't it typical!!! Hahaha!
I figured that I could post here and have honest debate
First you have to bring hones arguments to the discussion.
electing someone who is bound and determinded to destroy the constitution...
Um, that would be Bush. Please see the past 8 years.
charlotine
I usually don't comment on spelling (because I misspell words as well), but this one is a devastatingly bad.
So how many times did that evil bush let us get attacked after 9/11..... Oh that's right that idiot didn't let it happen again.... What a loser! We should have thrown him out of office early on before he could have saved your liberal butt! As for being sore about lost elections --- I guess your still smarting after Bush beat not only Gore and then Kerry. As for my spelling -- What ever.
How many times do terrorists attack americans on american soil historically again? What's that? Every 7 to 10 years? Course, all those increases in attacks around the world after 9-11, that's a different story. And Bush not doing anything about the rise in pirating off the coast of Africa? Oops.
Once. But you have probably conveniently forgotten the anthrax attacks, like many others.
Is that still believed to be the work of a lone perpetrator for a motive of personal profit? If so, I really have a problem with blaming Bush for that. Any random person could go out tomorrow and send out a dozen letter bombs, and there's literally nothing that anyone could do to prevent it.
I'm not blaming Bush for it. I am saying that the anthrax attacks happened on his watch.
As for whether "any random person" could do it - really, any random person can get anthrax? Yes, bombs, but these were not bombs.
It definitely qualifies as a terrorist attack, it happened after 9/11 and during Bush's time as presidency.
The phrase that you responded to was "let us get attacked". I just don't think you can put any stock into that one no matter who's in charge. Someone operating on their own sends no signals and isn't communicating with anyone. There's no intelligence or infiltration that could lead an agency to thwart anything of that nature. That's what I'm saying, not that anyone can get anthrax. This one individual was in a position to use anthrax, but I'm phrasing my point to apply to the general population.
Terrorism is not for monetary gain, as my understanding goes, but to change people's actions or policies for some political or religious ends. A serial killer may terrorize a community, but they wouldn't be considered a "terrorist", because there's no higher goal that they hope to accomplish through it.
Well golly gee Fawlty Logic -- I guess you could have just jumped right out there and prevented that one....... Your right, I guess there was one attack that sliped from the radar -- How about that shoe bomber, no wait that didn't happen - How about all the other airplane takovers that happened, no wait that one didn't happen either...... I guess he really did do a faulty job of keeping the country safe ------ Before you blame him for 9/11, that blame lies with Clinton, had the chance to get rid of Osama but decided not to.... I guess those darn Liberals aren't that perfect either, hmmm.
This is what passes for "honest debate"?
Whatever.
Tea Time: What about the terrorist attacks in London, Rome and Madrid? Don't attacks against our allies count? Guess not. That attitude certainly helps explain why we don't have more friends in this world right now - and why President Obama must work hard to reconstruct those vital relationships.
Additionally, of course, it was much easier for people who wanted to kill Americans to just go to Iraq. Years ago in the San Francisco Chronicle was an interview with an Army Colonel who said "This is their Super Bowl." Fighters came from all over the world to attack Americans.
Those deaths don't count, either? Your world-view is a bit twisted (to say the least).
So how many times did that evil bush let us get attacked after 9/11
Here's a clue: His term didn't start on 9/12. 9/11 happened his watch, he was asleep at the switch, and 3000 people died because of it. 9/11 is Bush's failure.
Hush, Hush, Sweet Charlotine...
Tea Time: I responded to your comments with some very specific facts. Your response? Still waiting...
I figured that I could post here and have honest debate
Oh pleaseeee! You want an "honest debate" and use language like "your great Obama Messiah" ?
Cut the drama queen act, it's pathetic!
I agree MissDee
Get that piece of "belief" off of "seig heil on your dial"?
MissDee: Of course, Ole BlunderRush and Sheer Insannity routlinely just leave out the facts when they report...
Too bad they don't start including "Fascist" in "Republican Party" when they report on them too, right?
Do you believe that merely calling someone "socialist" amounts to political discussion?
I'm pretty sure that MissDee hasn't the foggiest idea of what 'Socialism' truly is...
Doocey managed to slip in the lie that Obama's budget is 4x bigger than any of Bush's.
He also undershot on the number of congressmen and Senators that are showing up by about 10.
Interesting debate. The polarity demonstrated here is not surprising, but it is somewhat discouraging. I'm as biased as anyone else. I voted for George Bush, but I also voted for Clinton and Obama (reluctantly). I, like the MAJORITY of Americans just want the politicians to work towards improving our country without the usual political bickering, posturing, and self service. I think that the tag, "selfless politician" is an oxymoron. Both parties have put their own party's and their own state's agendas before those of the American people. Duh. This has been going on for eternities, but many of us, Republican, Democrat, Liberal, Conservative, Whatever, are sick of it! Granted, after owning a business and recently closing it after 20 years of success, I have become way more conservative. I was raised as a liberal Democrat by parents who still consider themselves so. I DO believe I can see both sides of these issues. If people want to get togather to protest the direction that the country is headed, awesome. That is what makes our country great. Perhaps those with a different opinion should start their own protest. The fact is, we (Americans) want change. We are mad, sick, disturbed, and just plain tired! I am all about giving our President a chance, but I do question the wisdom of creating a larger deficit when deficit spending certainly played a role in bringing on this mess. There is no historical data that supports anyone's assertion that government spending will hasten economic recovery (this is the part where you cite FDR's New Deal, but WWII, not gov. spending brought us out of the great depression according to most historians). I think Bill Clinton's crowning achievment was working with Congress to balance the budget which IS credited with helping boost the tech revolution and the ensuing long term bull market. I guess my main point is this; instead of screaming at each other online and using personal insults to make out points, why don't we try and find some common ground? Surely there is SOMETHING that the 2 sides can agree on? Remember how it was on 9/12, the day after (obviously) 9/11? Man, that was cool. The problems we face now are no less significant than those we faced on that September morning. My guess is that coming together would take the fun out of bickering! Maybe one thing both sides could at least research and discuss is the Fairtax which has some Democratic support eventhough it was created by Republicans, radio guy Neil Bortz and Rep. congressman John Linder. Don't just take my word, read the book! It truly could change this country for the better over night. Considering how bad our economy is now, shouldn't we be looking for alternate solutions? Obama promised to study the issue when questioned about it during the campaign. Hmmm....let's hope to hell he does!
Good post! May I point out that while the Dismal Science can not precisely explain either the Great Depression or how we all got out of it, it is very clear that governments were very slow to react. Had the United States moved much more quickly (please remember the year FDR took office!) the GD would probably have been considerably shortened. And it would not have taken a War to finally turn the corner.
Well wasn't it government spending during wwii? What about the government spending after wwii in the GI Bill that is credited with the creation of the middle class or the spending by the government during the Marshall Plan credited for rebuilding Europe and Japan? The crowning achievement you cite by the Clinton administration saw a 39.6% top tax rate, hardly as you cite suffocating on the rich what is wrong with a return to those rates? The spending you cite by the Obama administration is because of the neglect and the failed policies of the previous administrations. Sometimes you have to spend to make money and provide for a better future. As far as fair-tax, why should I making $45,000p/yr. pay taxes at the same rate as a millionaire, that hardly seems fair?
<!-- /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:Wingdings; panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0; mso-font-charset:2; mso-generic-font-family:auto; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:0 268435456 0 0 -2147483648 0;} @font-face {font-family:"Cambria Math"; panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:roman; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:-1610611985 1107304683 0 0 159 0;} @font-face {font-family:Calibri; panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:swiss; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:-1610611985 1073750139 0 0 159 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-unhide:no; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} span.EmailStyle15 {mso-style-type:personal; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-unhide:no; mso-ansi-font-size:11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi; color:windowtext;} .MsoChpDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; mso-default-props:yes; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} -->
You comments there sound just a bit socialist. Before you start another attack on me – Read up on it…. “Take from the Rich to give to the poor” ß That is socialist, Stalin did it in Russia. The rich are made out to be these horrible people because they worked their butts off and made something of themselves. BTW – Watching these threads, I’ve noticed when anyone disagrees with you (the liberals), you start making the person who made the comment out to some sort of cook, nut job or just plain stupid – Are you unable to listen to someone else’s point of view, opinion or for that matter anything they say without reverting to a blathering name caller? Is it so hard for you to believe that you don’t know everything? There is a possibility, I know crazy idea here, that other people (who may not be of the same party as you) actually just might see something that you overlooked with the Obama administration? Believe it or not it’s not just one party that has the answers or ideas to better the country and pull us out of the mess that the politicians (not just one party but all of them) have gotten us into!
hello, this is freedom fighter i would like everyone to look on the tea party web site and get the times and locations of these rallies and form peaceful anti-tea party rallies stating how they are wrong about higher taxes when infact 90 % 95% of americans taxes go down under obama's plan every one making less than $ 250,000 a year !!!! print flyers and signs starting on the 15 th please stand up !!!
anti -tea party rally pass it on 15 th
As Scott Ostler wrote: "Big tent; lots of clowns."
"I heard somewhere (talk radio) about a person who is going to sue the govt on behalf of their child who is 10, for taxation w/o representation because the fiscal policies of today would have to be paid by their taxes in generations to come, and they don't have a say in the process."
That's certainly original. Obviously when children are actually being taxed in the future, though, they will have representation at that point. And just as obvious is the fact that they would be paying taxes then no matter what happens right now anyway. Since this is a matter of principle and not degree, the principle is already satisfied and the degree of taxation is not relevant.
They should avoid using the phrase "generations to come" also. By that standard you could declare any tax unconstitutional because children born thirty years from now don't have any say in them.
I don't see that gaining a lot of traction.
i knew this would happen. with the extreme rhetoric that fox would try to cover their own involvement in this. COWARDS
If ,the Republic party want to get back into power ,it has to become the party of jobs.People today have only one major concern and that's jobs.Tea parties DONT SCRAT WERE WE ITCH.IT's JOBS BABE.YOU want to stay in office tell us how you are going to ceate new jobs?At least tell the same LIES Obama is telling us.