a FOX in OBAMA's HOUSE

[Beachbug1vw]

I wish you would make a video about the BS that comes from MSNBC and CNN. They along with CBS, ABC, and NBC are all Liberal Far Left shills for Obama! No wonder Fox News was just voter overwhelmingly the most trusted news by 49% of Americans. As a moderate Democrat, I sure trust Fox alot more than any of the others.

[battim]

one of my last videos called scott brown and the olberman meltdown does just that.

[1inkdaddy]

your a dum ass & a lier

[battim]

about which part?

[bigdogsdontbark]

Their agos have been stroked too long. They dont want a debate, they want to roll over anyone that critisizes them. The Chicago Way. They arent leaders, they are peabrains. There has been a decision made in Afghanistan but Obama isnt going to anounce it until after tommorrow because he dont want to anger the liberals. He wants to make sure they come out tommorrow and vote. MSNBC has an agenda also, they take their talking points straight from the Mao administration.

[battim]

i address obamas lack of decisiciveness is afghnastan in my latest video on my front page

[ReluctantRedneck]

I pretty much hate Fox news. I've actually never watched Beck. Hannity and O'Reilly are goofs. I agree completely that the administration should just treat them like anyone else and fight the BS with logic. You're right about this battle going back a long time. Folks forget it was William Randolph Hearst who invented yellow journalism. Good thoughtful vlog.

[thefreeassociation]

The Administration has not said that it has boycotted FOX. It's said that FOX is not real news but it will still appear on FOX.

The big difference betweeen making a decision on Afghanistan and dealing with Sudan and Iran and Russia is that we are not trying to decide whether to send 40,000 soldiers into Sudan, Iran and Russia.....

[battim]

none of its real news. balloon boy? seriously?

mckenzie phillips? seriously?

[TruthCeeker333]

I love that your an actions person. You seem to be more interested in the actions of the left and the right then in what they say their going to do.

By the way, this video has been Sorffed! Great Job!

[battim]

what is sorfed?

[TruthCeeker333]

Check out Renetto's latest vids.

[battim]

do i have to?

[TruthCeeker333]

No. :)

[TheMercilessEye]

Did someone mention Ayn Rand? I heard an echo, over on another channel....

[TheMercilessEye]

Hm. Well, the surest way to lend FOX some credibility is for the Obama administration to engage them, and quite honestly, I don't think they deserve THAT. Right now their ratings may be up, but current polls show the Republicans at a 23% approval rating amongst Americans overall, so who is creating these ratings for FOX? I'm betting a lot of it is irate left wingers screaming insults at Beck on their TV screens. No, engagement would only increase FOX's credibility...let them rot...

[battim]

ayn rand......i am so sick of hearing that name...

[TheMercilessEye]

LOLOL... my sympathies, Tim. She's generally regarded as the Nietsche of capitalism...and like Nietsche, had more than her share of crackpot notions. The only people who take her seriously anymore are idealogues of hardcore lassaiz-faire, and they're almost into lunatic-fringe status, these days.

Has anybody mentioned, yet, that FOX is still owned by Rupert Murdoch, the primal opportunist and oligarch vampire of the media...? He's the main reason I DON'T watch FOX anymore, y'know...

[greezynigger]

blonde boys is pretty. i want some puzzih. where da white boy puzzih at!!

[NaturalTwentyFilms]

They will only engage Fox News if they thought they could get a fair shake. I think they'd be worried that Fox News would put a biased spin on the material.

Before they could engage Fox, there would have to be some sort of ground-rules laid out as to how they would present the material, I would think.

[battim]

a free press is not about a fair shake. its about as james madison put it "countering ambition with other ambition"

ground rules for a free press makes it not free.

[DuffMc81]

Think it can be summed up by your quote "they're not that evil"

I think it's based on risk/reward. There's less urgency to engage Fox because they probably have relatively little to gain (they will always be right and the admin will always be left) and much to lose where it really counts- votes in 2010 and 2012. By engaging a crazy dictator, I believe the hope is that it appears noble and brave on a world scale, and if they make a mistake, no one here dies. So less risk, higher reward.

[battim]

but isolating them makes obama looks like he has something to hide. it makes it looks like he will only preach to a choir. i understand what politically they think they are thinking, but ask nixon, history is not on their side.

[KorimTV]

I never put my two cents in on these videos cause im only a 22 yrd old man from the mid-west. But i agree with you bittim. but my view on the gov. of the US is out of wack. hell!!! the internet is the only place now you can get news, and some of that is bullsh*t. i miss Bill in office. We got funner news stories back then.

[DaysOfOurLivesSongs1]

Hi there. I didn't know where to leave a comment at on your channel, so I chose this. You left a comment on one of my videos and remarked something to the effect of you never saw 2 art forms merged together like that before. I sing songs about what's happening on Days Of Our Lives (about 40 songs a day for that and 30-40 a day for The Young And Restless). I am intelligent yet I have a small touch of autism besides. I sing 'cause I like it! Hope all goes well.

[battim]

hey man, i think you are great, do what you do.

[zenguin13]

Have you lost it?..Is fox news commiting genocide? No. Are they advocating slave labor camps? Not the last time I checked.

Oppressing diissidents, I don't think so.

Is MSNBC doing that? How could they?

Look.. We need to leave Afghanistan. The vendetta has to end. We are getting out of Iraq. Still we can't isolate ourselves from the world. As long as the USA splits itself into two factions it won''t happen though.

Who was that guy that said something about "A house divided"?

[battim]

afganistan didn't have to happen at all. did i say msnbc was doing that? a house of cards at this point. its divided in six different ways. its been pretty dissapointing. i can think of a couple of reasons why. it doesnt matter now.

[zenguin13]

I can't agree with you more. If we didn't get Osama by now it's moot. There's bigger bisquets to fry.

[HaleyMary]

you bring up an interesting point about how people put more blame on George Bush rather than the senators who voted for the Iraq war. I guess sometimes people can forget that decisions about how a country handles a situation isn't always solely the President's first choice. As far as engaging all enemies, I'm thinking it may depend on the individual enemies people have. If one enemy is friendly than another. :P

[Rh1no1]

To be brief, Fox is neither clever nor impartial - the way news is supposed to be. Fox= unfoxy

[battim]

No doubt. But doesn't the president have. Better things to do than scheme behind closed doors with keith olberman and rachel maddow over fox? Seriously?

[boobtubious]

The attack on fox news is ridiculous. For ANY administration of the US to attack an organization because they don't agree with the opinion or actions of the administration is just wrong. We are supposed to be a free country... it's a very slippery slope they are traveling down.

[lazlo5149]

You're conflating foreign policy with domestic media relations. They're not the same thing, and I think you of all people would realize that.

Further - the White House isn't saying they aren't going to engage Fox ( unless you saw something I didn't), they're simply acknowledging them for what they are. They're calling a Spade a Spade, and it's about time IMO.

[battim]

I am not sure the white house should be in the game of media critic. I think that got the bush adninistration into a quandary. I simply think that when you begin pinpoiting a media outlset as nonnews and others as news you put yourself in a position of pettiness. I also have an issue with controlled messaging...its one of the thing I hated most about the bush administration. I simply think they should engage the propaganda head on as they have other enemies abroad.

[lazlo5149]

And isn't the best way to engage propaganda "head-on" as you put it, to call it what it is? Seems like a pretty reasonable starting point to me.

[battim]

They aren't dissecting the lies. They aren't addressing some of the iisues. They are dismissive. Its petty. Its ineffective. Its makes them look petty. Look I want them to succeed with a lot of what they are doing. I want to get out of afghjanistan, but why are they wasting energy playing these games? It looks childish to those like me trying to support them. It legitimizes fox by reacting to them. Face them call them out with facts.

[battim]

That said, let's give incentives to war criminals...let's spend time and energy trying to humilate glenn beck, as id they aren't preaching to the choir? To what end? To give fox a higher viewer base? To give them something else to make it seem as if the obama white house is completely politicized. The politico article hit it on the head. This about control. Its about trying to stifle dissent and it will backfire and it will not help america.

[battim]

Further...I think ABC's white house correspondant said it best, who is the white house to decide what is news wothy and what is not news worthy? Isn't it a bit petty? Why not just ignore it? Why is sudan worth engaging (and nothing there will change until the war between the north and south is over...regardless of engagement) and myramar which is propped up by both the indians and chinese...why is this worth engagement but not a question or two about healthcare?

[lazlo5149]

The White House isn't deciding what's news worthy and what isn't. There's no censorship going on. They've simply stated their position on Fox Media.

Again, you're conflating all of these different things and making comparisons between them as if they are interchangeable. Foreign policy, domestic media and now healthcare. I don't think the same sets of considerations apply to all of them.

[battim]

The white house clearly stated they do not consider fox a news outlet. They decided on their own what constitutes what is a news media outlet and what is not. I consider fox opinion shows to be progandistic manure, but ii consider maddow and olberman to be the same. But they wouldn't exist if not for fox. So explain why maddow and olberman get a private closed door meeting with obama? The same reason rush got it with bush. Useful biased idiots who spread the word.

[lazlo5149]

They did state that they don't consider Fox to be a legitimate news channel. That's something different from censorship, or "deciding what is news worthy and what is not news worthy" as you put it.

[battim]

When did I say anyone is trying to censor fox?

[lazlo5149]

"Further...I think ABC's white house correspondant said it best, who is the white house to decide what is news wothy and what is not news worthy?"

And as I point out, they're not doing that. Deciding what is and is not news worthy implies that you are censoring that which you deem un-newsworthy.

Otherwise... who gives a fuck? It's just their opinion.

[battim]

When and where does that imply censorship? It simply implies that the white house has stated they will decide what questions they will answer and what press agents they will speak to. That's not censorship its control. I never implied censorship with this issue. Now obama cosponsoring un resolutions that condone blasphemy laws...now that is censorship.

[lazlo5149]

Well, I was taking that statement to mean that the white house was broadcasting (to the public) what was and was not news worthy. If you interpret it the way you've described then maybe you have a point. I have no idea what access Fox is getting at pressers, etc. I'm sure there's preferential treatment. I'm not going to touch the UN thing. I have to sleep.

[Stuka87]

Well, I can't say I agree with everything Fox News Corp. puts out. Some of it is valid, and I feel it is very important to have opposing views of anything. And while Fox is certainly biased to the right, MSNBC is just as biased to the left. CNN I think at least tries to be moderate in many of their main articles.

But I can see why Obama feels threatened by them. He is trying to push through some things that at the moment, are not overly popular. And any opposition may jeopardize that.

[battim]

Our country was founded on dissent, and frankly in historical context, hysterical dissent. The idea that fox is any different than the silly rhetoric during the revolution is beyond me.

[battim]

Our country was founded on dissent, and frankly in historical context, hysterical dissent. The idea that fox is any different than the silly rhetoric during the revolution is beyond me.

[AlexGrim]

Not all enemies use guns, some use ideas. Ideas can be more dangerous than guns cuz they control the minds of the gun weilders. If Obama is threatened by FOX then he has every right to engage them. Non-violently of course.

[battim]

Can you explain to me using logic how fox is more dangerous than the siudanese government? The junta in myramar? He has every right to isolate himself to deal with only those that agree with him. Its what bush did. Doesn't make it sound nor does it make it consistent.

[AlexGrim]

Ideas in general are can be dangerous, they made these governments and regimes you list. There is a reason these governments and others don't like ideas that oppose them, cuz they mobilize opposition to them. FOX would love to mobilize the nation against Obama it seems, and Obama sees this as a threat. That is, if you believe he isn't in league with some sinister consortium.

[AlexGrim]

I'm actually surprised I had to explain this to you, I thought you'd know this well. Are you testing me?

[AlexGrim]

Allow me to add, that the governments you listed are dangerous to their own people. I don't see Sudan or Myramar attacking us any time soon. Danger is subjective, are they dangerous to China? Russia? Iran and Pakistan are more of a worry in my opinion. What does Obama see as Dangerous? Isn't this the real focus of your query? FOX turning more Americans against him would seem to be a danger to him, more than Junta oppression of their own people.

[thork86]

To answer your question presented at 8:15:

For the same reason we allow hate-groups to protest or march or speak publicly about their opinions (opinions which they think are fact) or allow them publish any sort of media relating to what they believe.

Doesn't everyone have the right to an opinion and being allowed to openly express that opinion?

Think someone's opinion is vile, disgusting, hateful, racist, rhetorical, unethical? Don't want to hear it or watch it? Then don't.

[battim]

Amen. Wait til you see my vlog tonight...iwas setting up the crowd, so to speak.

[thork86]

word.

just thought id answer a question you present, for once!

ps- is pumpkin ready yet?

[battim]

Its on tap

[embracedestruction]

I agree and think the current WH strategy only strengthens Fox. When politicians, media outlets and activist groups have a problem with Fox news, instead of going after them on substance and deconstructing their arguments (as you an others on YT do) they resort to hyperbole; accusations of racism, vapid rants about how offended they are, etc.

As a result, Fox news has become a rally point for disaffected conservatives that feed off of negativity. Glen Beck in particular has become the Hydra

[battim]

Glen beck is laughing all the way to the freaking bank caring the shit out of people. Who should be ashamed of himslef to pretend he is some sort of thomas paine

[sniperraynor]

Didn't you promise us liquorish?

[battim]

who?

[sniperraynor]

In your becoming a youtube partner video, you talked about handing candy out to the 8 people who watch your videos.

[battim]

Oh licorice. With what they give me I can only afford hard candy.

[Syranus66]

heh and now the wheel turns.....

[battim]

whose wheel?

[Syranus66]

the wheel of humanity's inevitable end

[DantarBlade]

First: I want to say I disagree with you, and hold Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly in esteem, even if I disagree with them, which is rare.

Second: Most of the time, when it's not dealing with Republicans, I agree with you quite often.

Right now, the administration does need to make up it's mind about our enemies. They will not confront Fox News and it's commentators, because they don't have a good answer, as I see it. Honesty begins by being honest about one's self, then worrying about others.

[battim]

Youhave the right to follow and agree with whoever you want.  I simply do not see the world from their perspective. and honestly bill oreilly disagrees with sean hannity alot so i am confused how you can agree with both of them. that said i think they may have good answers or at least responses, but bringing up acorn and such would triangulate it the issues.

[12oranges]

I think you provide a good answer to your own question in your intro. Diplomacy doesn't work with everyone. You have to chose who you engage with and who you leave hanging. There are some factions that can't be appeased.

I think the comparison between FOX and 'enemy' governments only goes so far. Since these are governments of sovereign nations, there's no one else to engage diplomatically. Those are not equal situations and need not be treated equally, imo.

[battim]

Its still the enemy within. Its inconsistent to show aggressive rhetoric towards a few opinionated, and that what it is a tiny audience, as in one percent of the country per night, a tiny few but give tax money to genocidal maniacs. Sorry. Your right it only goes so far fox is not committing genocide

[12oranges]

Who you chose to engage with needs to be result oriented. FOX aren't genocidal maniacs, but they're also not changing their stance either. On the other hand if there's a slight chance the genocidal maniacs can be persuaded otherwise, then you have to engage talks.

Also, you've framed this as the Obama administration not wanting to start talks with FOX. It's more appropriate to consider this like a break down of ongoing talks. There's been exchanges between both parties prior.

[battim]

I think it would e results oriented. I think that slowly deconstructing such inane paranoid arguments and characterizations would win over independants, who apparently watch fox in droves according to polling. Perhaps your last statement is appropo, yet I think its more strategic and control oriented than it is ideological

[Squishykinss]

completely absurd. How can any human being protest health care? I'm all for a single payer healthcare system in this country but if I said that out loud on my post, I'd be attacked. Literally attacked. I had a bumper sticker saying the exact words "how can a human being protest health care?" and it got keyed off. I'm ranting now.

My main point is that Obama is doing what Bush should have done. Answered questions and actually engaging with the public.

[battim]

sme folks are protesting how we will administer it and how it will get paid. i think its fair for folks to say "wait a minute, how is it fair you will tax those who have been paying for it themselves all along?" and i think it is fair for folks who have gotten medicare and just dont get all the legalese involved to say "i was happy with what i had" i think its disingenuous to say all of these folks are simply portesting healthcare.

[Squishykinss]

a lot of people arming up with Glenn Beck blasting on their TV and radios. You have people going out killing abortion doctors, bringing high powered assault rifles to Obama rallys, and the list goes on. But this is party politics. The left was infuriated with Bush and was called unpatriotic by the rights. Now that Obama is in office the right is infuriated and called unpatriotic by the left. But as a progressive I look at what the right is protesting, calling it socialism and "nazism" and it's

[battim]

You can't blame militia movements on back. They've always been there. Alex jones maybe, but not beck. Beck is a paranoid dude...but the movements you speak of were already there doing this stupid shit. See tim mcvieh

[Squishykinss]

First off let me say, just mentioning Alex Jones brings up crazies and loonies so whisper his name when you talk about him. Other than that.. you have to look at the Jane Akre case against Fox and how Fox won their right to lie and still call it news.

The Obama Administration has tons of staff and they can engage Fox news and still do thousands of other little side projects. The BIG PROBLEM that this is causing is it's giving the wingnuts on the right a reason to fight back. You already have

[battim]

I knoe I always go after jones. His ilk are fun to poke fun at. The wingnuts have a reason to fight back when obama calls folks like beck the enemy and the people ideas illegitimate. Even if they are paranoid and intellectually vapid, this is american, they are still legitimate.

[HeathMercer]

Tim, they are engaging them. They still continue to regularly go on, and Obama even did the O'Reilly show during the campaign. Any time they attack Fox News it's generally in response to a question from another media source. I'm not excusing the behavior of the administration, because it strikes me as extremely petty to attack a news organization no matter how terrible they are. But there are administration officials on Fox News every day.

[battim]

heath, recently they have not gone on at all. the campaign was a year ago. they hand selected which networks obama would talk to about heathcare. he stuck to a script. anita dunn has already said they are controlling the message. thats not how free press works. things about this stink to me. it is petty and maybe that what bugs me most.

[HeathMercer]

Tim, that's just not true. This weekend Gibbs was on Fox News Sunday, the NSA was on America's Newsroom today, and the TARP oversight lady was on Cavuto. The reason fox has gotten all butthurt is that Obama didn't go on Fox News Sunday when he went on John King's show.

[battim]

Well that's good. Since I don't watch fox I simply wouldn't know. I stand corrected. I was simply going by emmanuels comments on meet the press. To be honest I usually have nothing to go by because I avoid fox and msnbc like swine flu. (But I woulnd up getting that too)

[MSWmson]

I have to disagree but feel you have inadvertently hit on the gist of the matter. Although I grab the nearest air-sickness bag when the yoyos are listening to Faux News and nodding along, lip-reading the crawls, that's EXACTLY how the free press works. There should be public opposition to blather and lies, but it should't come from any Administration. Too dangerous, and ultimately harmful to the free-for-all forum guaranteed the Fourth Estate. My opinion, natch--and I detest modern "journalism."

[battim]

Murdoch has brought this type of european trash journalism with him. I agree modern journalism is a side show. Look at how lou dobbs has changed. Cnn invented glenn beck and fox made him a star. Proft driven truth is no truth at all

[uglyengineer]

I know this wasn't the main point of your vid but I get tired of hearing how bad Fox is and nothing about the other media orgs; MSNBC is the worst as far as partisan opinion for the left, and the others aren't far behind. Any given morning I can hear opinion from msnbc joking about the GOP then often they'll read and deny viewer feedback telling them how left they are. Its all such a sham.

[battim]

engineer, the ed show, olberman, maddow, all of them are reactions to to fox. none of them would even exist without fox. murdoch changed the game. you are right, they arent any better than fox, but they exist because of fox.

[Xelanderthomas]

I can't argue with "why not engage all your ememies" don't want to argue it, I agree. But trying to answer your question could the operative word be "rhetorical" I mean, Its (fox) a war of ideas and words being thrown around the other, as you say, are actually acts of that are right here and now destroying life. So maybe the feeling is that that takes the attention and action. Why you can't tackle both...don't know.

[battim]

destroying life in the same way the the junta is myramar is, or the sudanese government is, or the chinese government for that matter? did you know 90 percent of chinese dont have access to a doctor? i mean is there consistency there? there are those that would argue the jobs lost, and there will be millions of jobs lost in the insurance industry, will cost lives too...i think putting death on the shoulders of fox is disingenious

[Xelanderthomas]

again, I agree

[battim]

We often do. Will you marry me? I cook.

[Xelanderthomas]

a match made in heaven LOL

[battim]

if that is heaven, hell must be worse then i ever imagined. (wink)

[KiheiLawyer]

Because talking with other countries could result in peace, stability, common ground--MAYBE, certainly knowing your enemy makes it more difficult for most humans to seek out and destroy that known enemy. Engaging with media units like Fox results in nothing positive. Fox is not going to stop bastardizing Obama no matter what. There goal is to sell air time, NOT come to some peaceful resolution of a conflict. It is a waste of air to have such talks with a media outlet.

[battim]

common round with iran, like kim jong il right? look im saying i understand why obama is doing it, but i hold optimism that the junta in myramar will change or the sudanese. the man is a war criminal. he deserves justice, not incentives. aren't you a lawyer? i know you feel the president should be dictator so i am not surprised you feel this way.

[KiheiLawyer]

OK, but I really do not believe that the First Amendment ever contemplated that "Freedom of the Press" to include everything that has happened with the "media". Freedom of the Press means that the people should be allowed to REPORT the news. Since the 1970s, this has somehow morphed into MAKING of the news with "investigative reporting". Our founding fathers wanted a press that was able to merely report in an unbiased manner. What has happened with Fox is a caricature of conservative media.

[KiheiLawyer]

I am Republican and Fox is a joke. CNN is becoming the liberal version of Fox, politically, although it still actually reports news unbiased in the non-political realm. Yes, a President should be able to say "look, I am not going to engage with someone who has ZERO chance of being fair." The enemies Obama engage with have an interest in playing nice. Fox is off the air if it plays nice.

[battim]

fox is a joke. msnbc is a joke. media is general has laways been a one sided joke. i dont recall kronkite reprting the north vietnemese tradegies going on by the thousands every day. i cant stand fox, but to say this hasnt been going on from 1776 is revisionism at its finest. i know, that what lawyers do best.

[battim]

you really need to read some of the hisotry of american journalism. totdays stuff is pretty tame compared to the past. the things that were said about folks in the 18th and 19th century went from pedophile serial killer. you know nothing about early american press by making the statement you have. its almost funny.

[battim]

That said your revisionist take on our founding fathers ideas of freedom of the press has no merit.. when sherman tried to add the terms freddom of a "decent and truthful" speech and press". He was flatly and unanimously rejected.

[KiheiLawyer]

i expect better from you.the media from the 18th and 19th centuries were SO limited in the ability to effect anything as a "strong" article might be read by a small number of people or in such a small geographic area. the media did not have the ability to persuade such large groups and areas with misplayed sound bites. the media, people, had a greater respect for personal lives. additionally the media was not able to control people with this "politically correct" bullshit that they do today.

[TheMercilessEye]

What the media was unable to accomplish in that era, a few well-paid thug head-crackers and riot-inciters were usually able to influence nicely. The use of print media in influencing public opinion gained ground with people like Kipling and Twain manning the pen. The real power of visual media as a tool of propaganda was perfected by a young protege of Joseph Goebbels, named Leni Riefenstahl. Watch here: watch?v=Uczv0tCdC6o

[battim]

you are so misinformed. they were able to induce quite a bit of violence. try the revolution for one. they certainly had the ability to influence policy which influenced millions of people. they has no respect for personal lives. so many books have been written about the yellow journlaism inthat era, edgar allen poe spent a good portion of his latter days going after it. but i know, facts do'nt matter to lawyers.

[KiheiLawyer]

survey says "X". The limited scope of media's ability from that era is elementary, so we can move on from that. There is no debate and for you to continue to take that stance is beneath you. Sure, there was a few 'sexy' stories from the past. But the media's ability to influence SO MANY people and on such a large scale AND more importantly, the ability for organizations like FOX to influence so many people in so diverse areas so quickly (ie NY, Iowa, Florida, Texas) changes everything.

[battim]

Fox highest rated shjow get arond 3 million views. That 1 percent of the population. There were dozens of times more newspapers then and they all borrowed popular scandalous journalists articles. They all shared those stories. The press changed elections for two centuries. As for the large scale...sure they have. Academic hostorians disagree. That said you said it wasn't the intent of our fathers. They made it clear that truth and decency wasn't there goal. They voted against it

[KiheiLawyer]

but you fail to see that back then only the upper class and upper middle class could even read and it they might get upset about something now and again in a slow manner. today anyone can watch tv. thus Fox, CNN, etc can reach all levels of IQ quickly on multiple topics. Writers then most likely were schooled and learned people. Today, a pretty face with ZERO background can influence a large group...

[KiheiLawyer]

Heck, look at Oprah. She is the perfect example of a low IQ person in the right place at the right time having so much influence--enough to elect a president. The bottom line is that Obama should be able to say "no, I do not want to waste my time talking with a particular news organization" that is doing nothing but selling air time. THAT is not his job. There is nothing to engage as FOX has no interest in being fair.

[battim]

Oprahs viewership is 4 times that of any fox show. I don't recall obama saying he wasn't going to talk to her because she is unfair lor dangerous.  Its gotta go both ways

[wervasdeferens]

What's plan B?

Assassinate Murdoch and Ailes?

I agree with battim on every point except I believe that FOX's ideological rhetoric does indeed advocate genocide,slave labor camps, wanton death and destruction.

For example,1)The deaths of uninsured Americans.

2) Trade agreements that encourage Maquiladoras,the Mariana's Islands,sweat shops in Asia,etc.

3)Perpetual War-Bush doctrine,neoCons,Bill Kristol PNAC.

Fox supports all of this and therefore are that evil.

[battim]

Number two is a farce. Name one country we have trade agreements with that noth parites did not ratify that have slave labor camps? What has obama done to stop that trade. Number two is simply intellectually unfair. War policy had the backing of almost all media until way after the fact. Fox has bill kristol. Cnn has glenn back for how many years?

[wervasdeferens]

Tim,

You're intelligent and well-informed.

I'm sure you're aware of the Marianas,the slave labor,forced prostitution,forced abortions.Then note the involvement there of Tom Delay,Jack Abramoff and other GOP.

Obama? He said we need to revisit NAFTA and other trade agreements and the Right smashed his ass about it.

As far as Beck,Dobbs,Stossel,etc. on other networks, it just proves MSM isn't all that Liberal.

After 911,you're right MSM backed War,but

N.Korea,Iran,etc?

[battim]

again, nafta and oversight of such agreements are of the oveversight of a democratic comgress, it makes them complicit. abramoff has been buying both sides of the aisle for a long time. guilt by association is tiring and a logical falacy. it happened in the 90's right, under clintons labor departments failures, right? yeah, that right. see be careful with guilt by association..the clinton years aloowed this to happen.

[wervasdeferens]

If you want to believe that Liberals and Conservatives have the same agenda,that's your perogative.

Clinton was a DCCC, corporatist, who had a GOP congress for 6 of 8 years.

There are still Conservative Democrats, there are zero Liberal Republicans.

Once the Dems rid the party of the Cons, then maybe you'll see the difference.

But to say Abramoff,Norquist,Reed and the whole Moral majority,NeoCon,Right Wing,GOP Marriage is no different than Democrats, come on Tim.

[battim]

To answer this specualtive post, you have to answer me, when did I say they had the same agenda. I was simply pointing out these atrocities happened under clintons watch. That's all

[wervasdeferens]

Ok battim, My apologies, you're correct.

Clinton was complicit with the Right Wing, globalization, NWO agenda.

LOL putting words in your mouth again.

You're cool, you know your shit, I'll stop fuckin with you.......for now.

Nice Sleeves,btw.

[battim]

Well the idea of a one world government is hardly right wing. And yes clinton signed and his administration authored nafta.  Obamas trade policy is identical to bush's.

[wervasdeferens]

Poppy Bush negotiated and signed NAFTA.

After the legislatures ratified it and Clinton put some US worker protection in it, Clinton then signed it into law.

Obama hasn't really addressed the issue, although he has reversed his campaign rhetoric.

I don't disagree with you, both sides are complicit in the fleecing of the US..

However,the preponderance of the blame falls on the right.

The "false left/right paradigm" is Alex Jones talking.. Google it, and Infowars will be the first result.

[battim]

its funny. alex jones is a moron. clinton ratified nafta through congress. he signed it. your history is lacking. five expresdients were there for the signing. obama is continuing the trade policies.

sociobiologist have been rethinking the paradigms of the hmuan mind long before alex jones was a blink in his mammas eye. infowars is mind candy for morons. blame is relative.

[wervasdeferens]

Yeah Alex Jones and Glenn Beck, what a pair.

You're right, blame is relative. And relatively speaking ,the Right fucked shit up with their Ayn Rand phulosophy.

Eventhough one of my fav bands was Rush and Neil Peart (a Ayn Randsian) in his day, was the best drummer in the Milky Way.LOL

I look forward to your next video, you have a great perspective.

I'm going back through some of your old stuff,as well.

Keep on Rockin, in the Free World !

[battim]

its not even ayn rand. beck and glenn bastardized ever her. that said thre is little similiarities between the policies of bush, bush and reagan to ayn rand. seriously. they were all big government guys. you can' big for ayn rand and for gloabaliized control. they two dont match. realtively speaking the left have fucked a bit up too. see lao and stalin for starters.

[karen32862]

The only difference between fox and the other cable shows is it leans right. I wouldnt recommend Fox as the only source for news; however, this country needs an opposing voice asking questions of the pres. We arent getting that from MSM. Media is suppose to be the light bringing transparency. Instead its been smoke & mirrors to prop up their guy. Fox has more to offer than beck/hannity. I'll take fox over msnbc any day.

[battim]

banks, media goverment has all become too cozy, useful idiots as it were. no?

[karen32862]

Yup. That is why the real news getters is the blogosphere. I did an experiment one week. I watched CNN, MSNBC and FOX. I took notes on their news reporting (not the opinion shows.......the news). The top 3 stories on each channel were the same, just reported differently (MSNBC & CNN leaned left, Fox leaned right). Of those stories NONE of the channels had their own investigations. All 3 just repeated what had already been reported on the net. Equally amazing is the news NOT reported by them.

[karen32862]

I agree that diplomacy can work with our enemies. However, it wont work with the likes of Iran. Irans gov. is not rational. Their interest is not peace, but obliteration of Israel and the west. You cannot negotiate with that. obama goes out of his way to appease these types of nutburgers. Yet, when it comes to supporting real democracy he either opposes it, or remains silent (Honduras, Iran uprising ect). To sum up: the administration has no principles whatsoever.

[battim]

I believe obama is principled. I just think you may disagree with his principles.

[karen32862]

No, he isnt principled. He manages by voter blocks. Those arent principles.

[battim]

If nothing else he believes in public redistribution of wealth rather than private redistribution of wealth. And if he is going by voter blocks he is doing a piss poor job, his approval ratings are in the toilet

[karen32862]

He isnt even principled on redistribution. He'd throw that under the bus in a NY minute if it meant reelection or not. As far as his approval ratings: Exactly!!! They are in the toilet, because he is not taking action on any of his campaign promises for fear of pissing off a voter block. That is what happens when you govern according to votes instead of principle. You cant please everyone. That is why principles are important. And thats why afghanistan is failing fast.

[battim]

Well I agree to disagree. I think he is pricipled. My problem is I wished he'd stop campaigning and start governing.

[karen32862]

Good analysis. The reason obama wont make a decision on afg. is purely political. He knows he is in trouble with his base for keeping most of bushes policies. He knows he is going to upset them with healthcare, because its going to be a watered down bill. He cant afford to upset them further by expanding troops. Its purely the political winds.

[battim]

we will see in the coming weeks...

[italianchappy]

they're strong with the weak and weak with the strong.

From my external point of view, during the Bush era liberals helped the international enemies to depict America as a violent and ruthless member of the international community (liberals were referring to the government only, but foreigners don't get this difference, usually). Now they want to put it all right because this perception of America around the world could be too damaging (this is enemies stenght). Instead, no problem bashing fox

[battim]

Its not about bashong fox...but bashing them as if they are a worse enemy to man than myramar or sudan? Engage genocide but ignore sincere if not paranoid rhetoric?

[giraffepoo]

I agree with Glenn Beck being sexy!

[battim]

Eww.

[shalylol]

Why does noone get the joke? "My favorite political philosophers are mother theresa and mao". WHY DOES NO ONE GET THE JOKE.

[karen32862]

Because in the context of the vid it wasnt a joke. If she really intended it to be a joke it was a very poor one. Substitute mao with hitler, and then subsitute dunn with ari. Still funny to you?

[battim]

Did you watch her speech? She was not kidding. She said she turned to him most. She went on to quote him several times. The joke was simply that you sont hear their names together often.

[Squishykinss]

It's not uncommon for women to say Mao was a great political philosopher. He did revolutionize women rights in china while he was in control. And unfortunately after he died, the new leaders returned it back to the way it was before Mao.

[battim]

Mao was responsible for more deaths of innocent lives than any single man in the twentieth century. There are plenty of other pacifist less completely insane folks to pick from feminist literature to put on a pedestal. Again let her explain that instead she lied and siad "I never said that"

[battim]

squish, its uncommon. lol. by your standards are you implying that millions of america women how mao on their shelves? cmon.

[Squishykinss]

then tell that to the entire population of china who still look up to him as one of the greatest leaders

[battim]

Brainwashing is not the same as looking up to someone. American still look up to slave owners and folks like fdr who inprisoned folks based on their race because they are told to. A generation of germans looked up to hitler. Your point is what?

[s2cuts]

You've already mentioned one plausible reason, in that the white house might be trying to distract fox from attacking some of their immediate domestic goals. However, I think this is unlikely to have an effect. Fox isn't going to change.

I think a more likely explanation is that they're trying to 'turn' some independents or moderates who watch fox. If they can plant the seed of doubt with some of fox's more critically minded viewers, there's a chance they can strengthen their own support.

[battim]

The demographic show fox has moderates watching.  Moderates seem unenthused with obama thus far.

[appybuddha]

I would like to see them engage Fox as well. That being said, it may be a good strategy to do what they are doing and point out that Fox isn't really news.

[battim]

most news lately isn't really news

[MadBadVoodo]

I find it interesting and sad that the White House is attacking FOX news. BTW FOX is a great news channel before 8 PM Then it sucks just as bad as MSNBC...

[battim]

Glenn back comes on at 5. He is a moron

[PappyStu]

Humans by nature gather those things that support their conclusions and refute those things contrary to their conclusions seeing the world through their individual rose colored glasses...

[battim]

tribalism.