If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Hot Air) Obvious "All the news that's fit to print" (unless we delete it after talking to the White House)   (hotair.com) divider line 105
More: Obvious  
•       •       •

3248 clicks; posted to Politics » on 31 Oct 2009 at 5:21 PM   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»   |    Get this fabulous T-Shirt and impress the methane out of your friends! shirt it!



105 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2009-10-31 02:51:04 PM
Because the friggin republicans are throwing a hissy fit saying Obama used it as a photo op.

FTOFA: The images and the sentiment of the president's five-hour trip to Delaware were intended by the White House to convey to the nation that Mr. Obama was not making his Afghanistan decision lightly or in haste.

Personally I'm glad he honored those men that gave everything and I'm glad he's not afraid to show the nation his thoughts and respect. To my fellow republicans throwing a hissy fit over this: Go die in a fire. You wouldnt have said shiat if Bush did this.

/Republican
//War Veteran
///Voted for Obama because of the retards that have taken over my party fail to realize they still represent the nation, not just those who vote for them.
 
2009-10-31 03:43:12 PM
I don't know if Hot Air tries to masquerade as a home of journalistic integrity, but they sure don't know shiat about it. The NYT's change to the article makes it MORE NEUTRAL.

It's one thing to joke about up being down and black being white with conservatives. It's another to actually see it in action.
 
2009-10-31 03:57:17 PM
well at least it's not another birth certificate story.
 
2009-10-31 04:27:13 PM
i159.photobucket.com

I'm sure this makes me a bad American...
 
2009-10-31 05:05:58 PM
I had a really tough time finding my car key this morning. Could Obama have done this? If so, (and there's no reason to believe that he didn't) then this is completely unacceptable.
 
2009-10-31 05:24:46 PM
Photo op from a photo whore.
 
2009-10-31 05:24:47 PM
Good job, NYT.

i33.tinypic.com
 
2009-10-31 05:27:15 PM
I work at a newspaper, so I understand how it works. Stories often go through several revisions before they see print. Often times they double check facts, re-write confusing passages and try to stamp out any bias that's in a story.

In a newspaper, you usually have a day to get things sorted out. However, with the advent of Internet- journalist are now forced to write quicker to compete with 24hr news channels. Thus stories aren't confirmed, confusing writing abounds and bias seeps into what should have been news.

Either way, the New York Times changed nothing about the story. It is obvious that the news people were asked to come along. All it did was simplified the message that the President was trying to convey.
 
2009-10-31 05:29:29 PM
FTA: The editors of the NYT could have removed it on their own without prompting from anyone, but that doesn't make a lot of sense....It would appear that someone other than bloggers brought this to the attention of the Times and pressed for the removal of the offending paragraph...If it wasn't inaccurate, then who pressed them to remove it?

So, in other words, Hot Air has no idea who removed it or why, but chose to write a headline essentially accusing the White House of pressuring them to do so (using Beck-esque logic that only a mental chimpanzee would believe) and ignoring the fact that the removed section makes Obama look GOOD and removing it makes the article more neutral and responsible.

Wow that...well, that sounds exactly like something Hot Air would write, actually.
 
2009-10-31 05:29:47 PM
I'm gonna make a wild guess that the use of the "Cavuto?" in the headline means that there's not a shred of evidence to back up the accusation.

[reads article]

Yep.

They should go back to their more credible outrages -- arugalah, spicy mustard, kenyan birth certificates and Obama hasn't cleaned up Bush's clusterfakrs quickly enough.
 
2009-10-31 05:32:43 PM
HA! Guess the NYT wasn't fellating exactly the right way. You know this WH is on the run when they are trying to micromanage even this sort of thing.

Also,

Obama should be ashamed for appearing like that. Any president who turns dead American soldiers into a photo op for political points isn't fit to be dog catcher, let alone commander in chief.
 
2009-10-31 05:33:09 PM
Emposter: using Beck-esque logic that only a mental chimpanzee would believe

By shocking coincidence, you just described Hot Air's readership.
 
2009-10-31 05:35:54 PM
If only there was some metaphor, idiom or other figure of speech to describe Hot Air.

Dare I say they are full of themselves?
 
2009-10-31 05:36:51 PM
FishyFred: I don't know if Hot Air tries to masquerade as a home of journalistic integrity, but they sure don't know shiat about it. The NYT's change to the article makes it MORE NEUTRAL.

I don't know that it makes it more neutral. It does swing the reporting on the visit from slightly negative to slightly positive.

"The images and the sentiment of the president's five-hour trip to Delaware were intended by the White House to convey to the nation that Mr. Obama was not making his Afghanistan decision lightly or in haste." - seems that the author would have had to have been told this by someone with the WH, however. This isn't an opinion piece so if this is an assumption it really isn't in line with the NYT's level of journalism.
Could be why it was removed, of course.
The replacing paragraph was not neutral in its description, however.
 
2009-10-31 05:37:43 PM
Bill_Wick's_Friend: I'm gonna make a wild guess that the use of the "Cavuto?" in the headline means that there's not a shred of evidence to back up the accusation.

[reads article]

Yep.

They should go back to their more credible outrages -- arugalah, spicy mustard, kenyan birth certificates and Obama hasn't cleaned up Bush's clusterfakrs quickly enough.


Neil Cavuto: World's biggest douchebag? Some people say yes.
 
2009-10-31 05:38:38 PM
FishyFred: I don't know if Hot Air tries to masquerade as a home of journalistic integrity, but they sure don't know shiat about it. The NYT's change to the article makes it MORE NEUTRAL.

It's one thing to joke about up being down and black being white with conservatives. It's another to actually see it in action.


They? You mean Michelle Malkin? She's the only right wing frother that has two of her own fark tags.
 
2009-10-31 05:59:33 PM
During the Nixon era, they just transcribed the tapes with a lot of (unintelligible) thrown in, and everyone was happy with that.
 
2009-10-31 06:01:59 PM
I read something last week that made claims that people in the administration think government should bust up control by people like Rupert Murdoch and let government control the media itself....give it a 50 billion dollar budget, and staff it with Americorps volunteers but I can't seem to find it.

Of course I brushed it off as some right wing kook piece but anyone remember reading something similiar?

It also had links to other stories from Missouri where the Obama campaign wanted certain political ads to be kept from running cause it brought up the way he voted on gun control.

Anyone....Bueler.....
 
2009-10-31 06:02:24 PM
I hate Chevy: FishyFred: I don't know if Hot Air tries to masquerade as a home of journalistic integrity, but they sure don't know shiat about it. The NYT's change to the article makes it MORE NEUTRAL.

It's one thing to joke about up being down and black being white with conservatives. It's another to actually see it in action.

They? You mean Michelle Malkin? She's the only right wing frother that has two of her own fark tags.


To be fair, Malkin's drivel constantly displays an exceptional level of stupidity that simply can't be adequately contained in only one tag.
 
2009-10-31 06:05:28 PM
Giltric: I read something last week that made claims that people in the administration think government should bust up control by people like Rupert Murdoch and let government control the media itself....give it a 50 billion dollar budget, and staff it with Americorps volunteers but I can't seem to find it.

Of course I brushed it off as some right wing kook piece but anyone remember reading something similiar?

It also had links to other stories from Missouri where the Obama campaign wanted certain political ads to be kept from running cause it brought up the way he voted on gun control.

Anyone....Bueler.....


upload.wikimedia.org

farm4.static.flickr.com
 
2009-10-31 06:10:18 PM
the_vegetarian_cannibal: Giltric: I read something last week that made claims that people in the administration think government should bust up control by people like Rupert Murdoch and let government control the media itself....give it a 50 billion dollar budget, and staff it with Americorps volunteers but I can't seem to find it.

Of course I brushed it off as some right wing kook piece but anyone remember reading something similiar?

It also had links to other stories from Missouri where the Obama campaign wanted certain political ads to be kept from running cause it brought up the way he voted on gun control.

Anyone....Bueler.....


Wow looks like the "how dare you gambit"

rule #2 of disinformation
 
2009-10-31 06:16:49 PM
Giltric: the_vegetarian_cannibal: Giltric: I read something last week that made claims that people in the administration think government should bust up control by people like Rupert Murdoch and let government control the media itself....give it a 50 billion dollar budget, and staff it with Americorps volunteers but I can't seem to find it.

Of course I brushed it off as some right wing kook piece but anyone remember reading something similiar?

It also had links to other stories from Missouri where the Obama campaign wanted certain political ads to be kept from running cause it brought up the way he voted on gun control.

Anyone....Bueler.....

Wow looks like the "how dare you gambit"

rule #2 of disinformation


If you're so confident in your claims, why don't you provide the actual source of the article?

You do realize that there's this thing around these days called "Google," right? Makes your "I can't seem to find it" excuses less believable.
 
2009-10-31 06:23:53 PM
I read something last week that made claims that Glenn Beck raped and murdered a young woman at some point in the year 1990 but I can't seem to find it.

Of course I brushed it off as some left wing kook piece but anyone remember reading something similiar?

It also had links to other stories from Florida where Beck wanted certain criminal record documents to be kept from the public view cause it brought up some of his activities from the early 90's.

Anyone....Bueler.....
 
2009-10-31 06:24:47 PM
me texan: Because the friggin republicans are throwing a hissy fit saying Obama used it as a photo op.

Because he did.
 
2009-10-31 06:28:34 PM
randomjsa: me texan: Because the friggin republicans are throwing a hissy fit saying Obama used it as a photo op.

Because he did.


They sure as shiat don't have the credentials to complain, though.

img97.imageshack.us
 
2009-10-31 06:30:43 PM
randomjsa: me texan: Because the friggin republicans are throwing a hissy fit saying Obama used it as a photo op.

Because he did.


And he sought permission from the one family and they granted it to him. Are you saying you know better than the family of the fallen soldier what demeans him?
 
2009-10-31 06:30:55 PM
randomjsa: me texan: Because the friggin republicans are throwing a hissy fit saying Obama used it as a photo op.

Because he did.


Who cares what you think? You can't even keep your alts straight.
 
2009-10-31 06:31:09 PM
Emposter: (using Beck-esque logic that only a mental chimpanzee would believe)

The replies in this thread agree with you.
 
2009-10-31 06:32:51 PM
randomjsa: Because he did.

So lets pretend you're right and the commander in chief isnt trying to show honor and respect, but make a statement for his own benefit. The Republicans making a big hissy fit political statement in response and dragging the same soldiers families through the muck isnt the same thing how?

"LOOK! I care about the soliders!"

"No he doesent, we love them more, he's just using your emotions and we arent!"

Is that about right?
 
2009-10-31 06:32:59 PM
You guys still reply to randomjsa? Doesn't he just post one troll per thread and then run off? I don't think I've ever actually seen him respond to an argument before.
 
2009-10-31 06:35:02 PM
 
2009-10-31 06:48:35 PM
Hick: Photo op from a photo whore.

i267.photobucket.com
 
2009-10-31 07:12:38 PM
I automatically stop reading any article whose headline ends with a question mark. It says, "We believe/would like to believe this asinine thesis, but we don't have actual proof at this time. But we'll go public anyway." It's a FOX News special, but they're far from the only ones using it.
 
2009-10-31 07:20:45 PM
pescineri: I read something last week that made claims that Glenn Beck raped and murdered a young woman at some point in the year 1990 but I can't seem to find it.

Of course I brushed it off as some left wing kook piece but anyone remember reading something similiar?

It also had links to other stories from Florida where Beck wanted certain criminal record documents to be kept from the public view cause it brought up some of his activities from the early 90's.

Anyone....Bueler.....


"I'm a stickler for truth and accuracy"

/cool story bro
 
2009-10-31 07:26:33 PM
the_vegetarian_cannibal: Giltric: the_vegetarian_cannibal: Giltric: I read something last week that made claims that people in the administration think government should bust up control by people like Rupert Murdoch and let government control the media itself....give it a 50 billion dollar budget, and staff it with Americorps volunteers but I can't seem to find it.

Of course I brushed it off as some right wing kook piece but anyone remember reading something similiar?

It also had links to other stories from Missouri where the Obama campaign wanted certain political ads to be kept from running cause it brought up the way he voted on gun control.

Anyone....Bueler.....

Wow looks like the "how dare you gambit"

rule #2 of disinformation

If you're so confident in your claims, why don't you provide the actual source of the article?

You do realize that there's this thing around these days called "Google," right? Makes your "I can't seem to find it" excuses less believable.


Oh I can post a link now, but you will dismiss it entirely without even clicking it....cause thats what stands for debate these days......point out which parts are wrong or go suck your thumb.
Link (new window)
 
2009-10-31 07:29:26 PM
Giltric: It also had links to other stories from Missouri where the Obama campaign wanted certain political ads to be kept from running cause it brought up the way he voted on gun control.

The Missouri story was about an attack ad which ran which contained slanderous/libelous material and was pulled under threat of suit.

I know of no push by the administration to "bust up" anything even though many of us believe that the restrictions that used to be in place which prevented these massive media conglomerates should be reinstated.

It is funny how that message can be perverted by those who stand to make money off of it. My God, you'd think they cared more about money than our country.
 
2009-10-31 07:33:14 PM
Giltric,

You posted a link to Glenn Beck as though it was credible?
Are you farking kidding me?

There is nothing credible in that link - nothing, you've been lied to.
Here, here's another link that is far better suited for your argument.
 
2009-10-31 07:37:12 PM
Random Reality Check: Giltric,

You posted a link to Glenn Beck as though it was credible?
Are you farking kidding me?

There is nothing credible in that link - nothing, you've been lied to.
Here, here's another link that is far better suited for your argument.


I think he was actually trying to be serious. You could at least humor him for a few seconds, have a big glass of scotch first. It could even be fun.
 
2009-10-31 07:39:45 PM
Mordant: Random Reality Check: Giltric,

You posted a link to Glenn Beck as though it was credible?
Are you farking kidding me?

There is nothing credible in that link - nothing, you've been lied to.
Here, here's another link that is far better suited for your argument.

I think he was actually trying to be serious. You could at least humor him for a few seconds, have a big glass of scotch first. It could even be fun.


You can buy scotch in the 55 gallon drum?
Who knew?
 
2009-10-31 07:42:56 PM
Giltric: Glenn Beck

Figures. No wonder you were so reluctant to reveal your source at first.
 
2009-10-31 07:46:34 PM
the_vegetarian_cannibal: Giltric: Glenn Beck

Figures. No wonder you were so reluctant to reveal your source at first.


Yes, it's pathetic that he sits and reads that crap and lets it form his view of the world. But isn't it at least encouraging that he's somewhat ashamed of that ? Or, at least aware that he should be ashamed.
 
2009-10-31 07:57:53 PM
wow, it sinks even lower.

I almost feel like sending me texan a sympathy card right now.
 
2009-10-31 08:06:11 PM
RockIsDead: Wut?

Duh Timez iz duh Obami lap doggie?

When dat Happin????


Whatever dialect that was supposed to be, you did it wrong. You would have been better off posting that as SteelPeart.
 
2009-10-31 08:31:20 PM
Mordant: wow, it sinks even lower.

I almost feel like sending me texan a sympathy card right now.


Don't send him a sympathy card, encourage him to run for office.
We need people like him to get out there and DO SOMETHING.

Hell, if he and Hubie ran I would support them and even contribute to their campaigns.
 
2009-10-31 09:00:20 PM
I don't give a single iota about this. Try harder, Republicans.
 
2009-10-31 09:13:37 PM
Hender 2009-10-31 06:30:43 PM
randomjsa: me texan: Because the friggin republicans are throwing a hissy fit saying Obama used it as a photo op.

Because he did.

And he sought permission from the one family and they granted it to him. Are you saying you know better than the family of the fallen soldier what demeans him?


GOPers know how to treat families of war dead.
images.huffingtonpost.com
You send a few rednecks out to try to run over them on the side of the road.

Arrest them a few times.

"Poor, neglected Cindy thinks there's been too much Hurricane Rita coverage."
Yeah. GOPers really love & respect the families of war dead.
 
2009-10-31 09:16:03 PM
Random Reality Check: Hick: Photo op from a photo whore.

POW! Right in the codpiece!
Good show, Old bean.
 
2009-10-31 09:25:51 PM
the_vegetarian_cannibal: Giltric: blah, blah blah...
{weaselwords.jpg}

Is it Weasel Stomping Day, already?
 
2009-10-31 10:28:36 PM
I have no problem with the Commander in Chief seeing what happens at Dover up close and personal, photo op or not.

The troops assigned to Dover have arguably one of the most difficult jobs in the US military, in my opinion.

Link (new window)
 
2009-10-31 10:49:26 PM
freetomato: I have no problem with the Commander in Chief seeing what happens at Dover up close and personal, photo op or not.

The troops assigned to Dover have arguably one of the most difficult jobs in the US military, in my opinion.

Link (new window)


Thank you.
And I am also glad the President at least made time to stop by.
Unlike others we have recently known.
 
Displayed 50 of 105 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »