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.

(Politico)   Daily Caller reporter completes the final stage of his Fox News interview by heckling the President Obama on live television   (politico.com) divider line 131
    More: Dumbass, President Obama, Brian Stelter  
•       •       •

5750 clicks; posted to Politics » on 15 Jun 2012 at 8:05 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-06-15 03:09:28 PM
11 votes:
The comments on that article - oh my. People really don't respect the office of the President. Sadly, these are the same "you're a traitor if you disagree with the President" people from ten years ago, who were angered by anyone who dared to disagree with Bush's war policies.

It will only get worse from here. It's like watching the last hundred years of the Roman empire, but with less political murder.
2012-06-15 04:49:50 PM
8 votes:

SkinnyHead: Journalists shouldn't interrupt the President. And they shouldn't throw their shoes at the President either. Remember the time when that journalist threw his shoes at President Bush during a press conference. Most FarkLibs thought that was hilarious.


You're right, I did think that was hilarious, but not for the reason you think. I laughed because watching someone throw a shoe at the President was the craziest shiat I had seen in a long time. I laughed because it was unexpected and absolutely paradigm shattering, not because I didn't like the President. But there's nothing unexpected or novel about partisan hacks acting like jackasses. Besides, I remember a lot of liberals being impressed with Bush's cat like reflexes.

So if it makes you feel better, it's true that I'm not that concerned about the manners of the locals in some warzone shiathole. I do expect the members of the American White House press corps to show a little class.
2012-06-15 02:58:11 PM
8 votes:
This is what the "everyone is a journalist" age has wrought, a complete lack of proessionalism or even basic civilotyon the part of some "journalists". Les Kinsolving used to look like the laughingstock of the WH press corps, now he's looking like the grey eminence compared to some of these guys.

What Obama having to choke a biatch may look like:
images.politico.com
2012-06-15 04:50:05 PM
6 votes:

cameroncrazy1984: When a former Bush spokesman thinks you did something wrong, you dun goofed: Tony Fratto, who served as a spokesman for the George W. Bush administration tweeted: "Reporters don't interrupt presidential statements. Period.@NeilMunroDC should be banned from WH. #fb


Agreed. Pull the credentials immediately. You don't interrupt a statement that's being made. We teach this to 4 year olds. Adults should have it down.
2012-06-15 10:09:49 PM
5 votes:

Brick-House: I don't like Obama, I feel he's in way over his head and is the most un-presidential president that I can think of. But that guy was an ass. You do not interrupt the president.


Would you mind elaborating on what makes him less presidential than others?

From where I stand, the man's even keel, deliberate delivery, picture-perfect home life, lack of hyperbole or bombast, and willingness to negotiate with assholes in order to mitigate disaster is about as "presidential" as it gets. Additionally, this man is arguably one of the most foot-in-ass presidents we've seen in terms of terrorism, including pirates. If this guy had a regular-sounding name in 1985, people would be tripping over themselves to extol his virtues.

You don't have to agree with the man's vision on how good government works. But calling him the most "un-presidential" is laughable, particularly given the public persona of his predecessor. Like it or not, the guy is cool as a cucumber. Probably hung like one too, which might be the motivation for your claim.
2012-06-15 03:52:50 PM
5 votes:
When a former Bush spokesman thinks you did something wrong, you dun goofed:

Tony Fratto, who served as a spokesman for the George W. Bush administration tweeted:

"Reporters don't interrupt presidential statements. Period.@NeilMunroDC should be banned from WH. #fb
2012-06-16 04:51:50 AM
4 votes:

Friction8r: Fark Liberal Circle Jerk Club!


I always had to wonder why conservatives trotted this out. Here's the problem I see with this inane Hive Mind/Circle Jerk nonsense.

First it tends to be paraded as a thought whenever the conservative is suffering disagreement with the vast majority of people. Then they pull that card out. Why? If everybody suddenly did an about face and agreed with the con, would it suddenly be less of a hive mind? Of course not, it would be the exact same thing. It's reaction formation, of course -- decrying the hive mind mentality because one is frustrated that that is precisely what one cannot achieve.

It also smacks of the "do you always have to be right?" mentality (does anybody actually argue for the sake of being wrong? If so, shouldn't the person who actually believes that people must fill some mandatory wrongness quota be the one to concede? -- but you will note that they never do that) the makes up so much of special pleading.

We can see hive mind/circle jerk mentality, of course, but it so often originates with the right. One can see it most of all be displaying the echo chamber effect, where if they go to sanitized sites that (unlike Fark) actively suppress dissonant thought, such as Free Republic, posters continue to make posts simply to agree with each other and repeat little mantras. If liberals are stupid enough or trolly enough to wade into such a morass, the hive mind mentality expresses itself through constant evasion and non sequitur, and a failure to challenge the topics directly.

A lot of people agreeing with each other is neither a circle jerk nor a hive mind by any stretch of the imagination; it's just a lot of people agreeing with each other. They may be doing it because they're all equally right, or they may be doing it because they're all equally wrong. It is not hive mind mentality to take as axiomatic that 1 + 1 = 2, for example; it's simply correct. One will do well to note that the ones who pointlessly accuse without citing evidence are the ones who are, of course, always wrong.
2012-06-15 09:27:30 PM
4 votes:
We're still at war. Arrest him for treason. RIGHT, Republicans during all 8 years of W?
2012-06-15 04:56:07 PM
4 votes:
cdn2.dailycaller.comi.huffpost.combloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com

Stay classy, "conservatives"
2012-06-15 03:55:38 PM
4 votes:
Disgusting. Whatever you think of the President this is farking disgusting behavior.
2012-06-15 09:32:46 PM
3 votes:

Dan the Schman: Brick-House: I don't like Obama, I feel he's in way over his head and is the most un-presidential president that I can think of. But that guy was an ass. You do not interrupt the president.

Really? The MOST un-Presidential? Not Nixon? Not Andrew Johnson? None of the Presidents who kept slaves? Not Jackson and the Trail of Tears?

What has Obama done that is so vastly worse than EVERY SINGLE other President?

Or are you a threadsh*tting coward who doesn't have the balls to back up your vile rhetoric?


Hell, not President Bush II, who, among other things, thought it was a good idea to randomly give another head of state a farking massage out of nowhere?

What has Obama done that even COMPARES to that?
2012-06-15 09:13:37 PM
3 votes:

Brick-House: I don't like Obama, I feel he's in way over his head and is the most un-presidential president that I can think of. But that guy was an ass. You do not interrupt the president.


Really? The MOST un-Presidential? Not Nixon? Not Andrew Johnson? None of the Presidents who kept slaves? Not Jackson and the Trail of Tears?

What has Obama done that is so vastly worse than EVERY SINGLE other President?

Or are you a threadsh*tting coward who doesn't have the balls to back up your vile rhetoric?
2012-06-15 07:23:58 PM
3 votes:

SkinnyHead: Journalists shouldn't interrupt the President. And they shouldn't throw their shoes at the President either. Remember the time when that journalist threw his shoes at President Bush during a press conference. Most FarkLibs thought that was hilarious.


You mean the Iraqi, in Iraq, who chucked his shoe at the guy that had blown up his country for no damn reason?
2012-06-15 05:01:38 PM
3 votes:

vernonFL: Oh, but its okay to have a 300 year old anti-Semite as the Grand Dame of White House reporting?

You libs are so funny.


So it's OK to be a jerk if you can point to an occurrence when someone else was a jerk?

You cons are so funny
2012-06-15 04:57:24 PM
3 votes:

SkinnyHead: Journalists shouldn't interrupt the President. And they shouldn't throw their shoes at the President either. Remember the time when that journalist threw his shoes at President Bush during a press conference. Most FarkLibs thought that was hilarious.


Do you know why?

"My belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators." -Vice President Dick Cheney, "Meet the Press," March 16, 2003

W.Bush was greeted with the biggest insult in the Muslim world. Now that is comedy.
2012-06-15 04:32:24 PM
3 votes:
Journalists shouldn't interrupt the President. And they shouldn't throw their shoes at the President either. Remember the time when that journalist threw his shoes at President Bush during a press conference. Most FarkLibs thought that was hilarious.
2012-06-15 03:39:22 PM
3 votes:
WTF is a 'reporter' from a backwater blog doing there in the first place?
2012-06-15 03:15:37 PM
3 votes:

Dusk-You-n-Me: We are very proud of, @NeilMunroDC for doing his job- The Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) June 15, 2012


Fark you, Daily Caller.
2012-06-15 03:05:30 PM
3 votes:
Pull his White House Press Corps badge. Sounds like he's a bit unbalanced as a journalist, IMHO. Or he wants to move up to a Fox New job.

/Dude, you're an asshat.
2012-06-17 08:25:13 AM
2 votes:

ExperianScaresCthulhu: They are. You, for instance, just excused the behavior in one case because you disagree with the target and agreed with the assaulter's reasons; but in the other case, you agree with the target and disagree with the assaulter's reasons. The guy from the Caller and the dude who threw the shoe feel exactly the same way towards their targets and could give you deeply felt reasons why they feel the way they do. It doesn't matter whether you personally agree with one assaulter's reasons, and dismiss the other assualter's reasons. In the end, they are both the same.

Neither one of them had any business disrespecting the Office.

It's wrong to excuse one, because you hate the guy, and condemn the other, because you love the guy.


Um, no. While I think shoe-throwing-guy was hilarious, I also think it was wrong. That said, claiming the two incidents are exactly the same is profoundly retarded.

"This is a farewell kiss from the Iraqi people, you dog", yelled al-Zaidi in Arabic as he threw his first shoe towards the U.S. president.[1] "This is for the widows and orphans and all those killed in Iraq",

ExperianScaresCthulhu: The guy from the Caller and the dude who threw the shoe feel exactly the same way towards their targets


Munro felt that President Obama had invaded his country?
Munro thought he was an Arab?
Munro interrupted President Obama because he believed President Obama had killed a lot of Iraqis?

What the fark are you talking about?

ExperianScaresCthulhu: It doesn't matter whether you personally agree with one assaulter's reasons, and dismiss the other assualter's reasons. In the end, they are both the same.


Actually that matters a lot, you damn jackass.

First of all, here's another way they're different. Munro was incredibly rude and unprofessional, but he didn't assault President Obama.

But back to the meat of the issue, no, again, seriously, the same action can be excused or condemned depending on the reason.

Tom shooting Bill in the face because Tom wants Bill's money: Tom is a murderer and should be punished with lengthy incarceration.
Tom shooting Bill in the face because Bill has a gun to Tom's kid's head: Tom is completely justified and should be allowed to go free.

Same action, Tom shooting Bill, same passionate belief by Tom that he's completely entitled to do that to get what he wants, two very different realities as to whether or not Tom is actually entitled to do that.

So no, stop pretending like whether or not people genuinely believe they're entitled to act the way they do is the same as whether they actually are entitled, because it makes you sound like a tit that doesn't understand how the world works.

There's also the fact that the backlash against Shoe Thrower was immediate and ended up being hilariously turned around on him:

President Bush ducked twice, avoiding being hit by the shoes. Al-Zaidi was then pulled to the floor[26] by another journalist,[27] before being grabbed by Prime Minister Maliki's guards, kicked, and rushed out of the room. White House spokeswoman Dana Perino was hit in the face by a microphone boom sent flying by a presidential bodyguard resulting in a clearly visible black eye.[28]

Some Iraqi reporters present at the scene offered apologies to President Bush. "Thanks for apologizing on behalf of the Iraqi people. It doesn't bother me", Bush joked: "If you want the facts, it's a size 10 shoe that he threw."[29] When asked about the incident by another reporter, Bush said "It's a way for people to draw attention. I don't know what the guy's cause was. I didn't feel the least bit threatened by it."[30] When later asked to reflect on the incident, Bush said "I didn't have much time to reflect on anything, I was ducking and dodging." "I'm not angry with the system. I believe that a free society is emerging, and a free society is necessary for our own security and peace", he added.[31] "I don't think that you can take one guy throwing his shoe as representative of the people of Iraq", argued White House Press Secretary Dana Perino.[32]

The Turkish company that made the shoes thrown at Bush, Ramazan Baydan, experienced a surge in sales. Orders for 300,000 pairs were received in just 1 week.[33]
Cartoosh's View

On 1 December 2009, Muntadhar al-Zaidi, who first shoed Bush, got shoed himself in Paris by an exiled Iraqi journalist .[34] Zaidi later said "He stole my technique."[35]


Still, there are substantial differences.

1. Obama did not invade America based on false pretenses.
2. I expect better behaviour from people who actively seek credentials on domestic journalism than I do from foreign journalists reporting on a one-off event in the country that was invaded.
3. It would have been funnier if Munro had thrown his shoe.
2012-06-16 05:32:07 PM
2 votes:

9beers: Obama will do anything he can to get reelected, what a shock.


Yes, how dare he try to broaden his appeal when he could be alienating demographic after demographic on a practically daily basis like the GOP?

But again; Since when do votes count?

It's been 8 years, the heat's off, the time is right for the election-stealing industry to make a comeback.
2012-06-16 03:41:51 PM
2 votes:

badhatharry: Decorum and respect go out the window when the President decides to become a dictator.


If he's a dictator, then I implore you to get all of your G0P friends together and tell them to not vote in the upcoming election. Your vote won't be worth anything if he's a dictator, right? So, why go to the polls in the first place? Tell your G0P friends to pass it on.
2012-06-16 02:04:48 PM
2 votes:

o5iiawah: There's no 'changing policy' here. This is the president establishing criteria by which illegal individuals can stay in this country. It is, by definition, making or changing immigration law, something which he has no authority to do.

Furthermore, "changing policy" isn't a defined role of the president as well. He can sign treaties or laws given to him by the congress or make speeches but ultimately it is up to the congress to codify it into law. Welcome to 2nd grade civics.


Whether you try to define it as "changing policy," "creating laws," or some other some such nonsense, what the President has proposed is obviously Constitutional, otherwise Republican Congresscritters, Conservative Pundits, and Right-leaning lawyers would be having a field day with his ideas. They might not exactly like it, but nobody's complaining that he's a dictator, or that what he's proposing is an unusual power grab.

So, I kinda hate to tell ya this, but real life is a tiny bit more complicated than a 2nd grade civics class. You'd have known that if you could have made it to 3rd grade.
2012-06-16 01:39:19 PM
2 votes:

Mart Laar's beard shaver: Funny how no one here as pointed out that what Obama proposed in his speech is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Barry's not a king; he doesn't just get to waive his hand and make it happen.


It's like when Bush signed those executive orders stating he didn't have to abide by the law as written right?
2012-06-16 11:01:17 AM
2 votes:

Sabyen91: Really? It seems like he is normal most of the time and trolly once in awhile. Kinda like Shaggy but less trolly.


And like Shaggy, he'll post normal in a few threads and then go full troll in others. Guy just isn't worth reading.

BMulligan: Actually, no. The word "president" should be capitalized when used in conjunction with a proper name as an honorific title (e.g., "President Palin"), but not when used as a generic noun (e.g. "I'm president of the local chapter of the Sarah Palin Fan Club"). Think of it as being similar to the word "doctor": "It took me years to find a doctor I could trust, but then my friend referred me to Dr. Josef Mengele."


Thought it should be capitalized when referring to the US President as it's referring to a specific position/title. Like governor is lower case because there's more then one governor but since our system only has one President.
2012-06-16 10:14:16 AM
2 votes:

A reporter near Munro isn't buying his excuse:



si0.twimg.com
Todd Zwillich
@toddzwillich

I was standing right behind Munro in the Rose Garden. Idea he "mistimed" his questions isn't credible. He purposely interrupted.

15 Jun 12

ReplyRetweetFavorite
2012-06-16 05:41:41 AM
2 votes:

dickfreckle: Brick-House: I don't like Obama, I feel he's in way over his head and is the most un-presidential president that I can think of. But that guy was an ass. You do not interrupt the president.

Would you mind elaborating on what makes him less presidential than others?

From where I stand, the man's even keel, deliberate delivery, picture-perfect home life, lack of hyperbole or bombast, and willingness to negotiate with assholes in order to mitigate disaster is about as "presidential" as it gets. Additionally, this man is arguably one of the most foot-in-ass presidents we've seen in terms of terrorism, including pirates. If this guy had a regular-sounding name in 1985, people would be tripping over themselves to extol his virtues.

You don't have to agree with the man's vision on how good government works. But calling him the most "un-presidential" is laughable, particularly given the public persona of his predecessor. Like it or not, the guy is cool as a cucumber. Probably hung like one too, which might be the motivation for your claim.


Hell, he hasn't been beaten up by a pretzel, he hasn't fallen off a segway, or attempted to date rape any head's of state in a public setting, nor has he puked on any premier's laps either. Which of those things would you call presidential presidential virtues? No blow jobs, loves his wife, loves his children and will kill anyone who looks at the US wrong while pointing a stick at our great country screaming death. He is cool, and he's taken his job very serious. No bribery scandals to date. One reason why maybe, due too all the missing bodies his administration has. See, Congress can't give him the same amount of workers other administrations have used just to keep things going. In the face of all of this, the US is still running, and you're complaining he's not presidential? I get it, he's black.
2012-06-16 12:40:34 AM
2 votes:

Shaggy_C: Remember that thread when the crowd booed Bush at a baseball game when he walked up to throw the ceremonial pitch?


In July 2008?

He's lucky he didn't get hit with a hot dog.

/ya buys yer ticket an' ya takes yer chances...
//hardly a wh press conference.
2012-06-16 12:17:43 AM
2 votes:

Friction8r: I don't always post on Fark


...and we thank you for that
2012-06-16 12:01:19 AM
2 votes:

Sabyen91: vernonFL just floated that out as a troll.


Vernon has always been a troll and trollmitter.
2012-06-15 11:30:54 PM
2 votes:

Darth_Lukecash: vernonFL: Oh, but its okay to have a 300 year old anti-Semite as the Grand Dame of White House reporting?

You libs are so funny.

Helen Thomas never interrupted any President while he was making a statement. Politeness counts.

Helen Thomas had her own views that she voiced (She was an opinion columnist), and reaped the rewards of saying such things.


The point that deranged freak vernonFL wants to deliberately suppress due to his love of lying is that, most importantly, Helen Thomas was being asked a direct question by the Rabbi David Nesenoff of RabbiLive.com, who was himself conducting interviews. As you note, she didn't interrupt anybody to voice her opinions, but furthermore her opinions were being directly sought.

It's unsurprising that to conservatives, this red herring deflection by false equivalence, which can only be indicative of mental instability and disordered thinking in the person who thinks it, is considered a valid defence.
2012-06-15 10:38:25 PM
2 votes:

3StratMan: This was acceptable though...

[www.thefringepodcast.com image 460x346]

Go ahead...try to convince me that you think it wasn't.


You should change your login to 3StrawMan
2012-06-15 10:28:37 PM
2 votes:

soy_bomb: jso2897: The funny thing is that the respect for the Presidency was destroyed by a Republican.
The party of white punks whose guns won't save them in the end.

[Clinton.jpg]


Nixon, you dolt!

img.photobucket.com
2012-06-15 10:14:20 PM
2 votes:

red5ish: "This is a farewell kiss from the Iraqi people, you dog!"
That journalist who threw those shoes was immediately arrested, tortured, tried, found guilty and thrown into an Iraqi prison for 9-months. After his release he was "treated for injuries" which suggests that he had a very bad time in prison.
And, of course, he was an Iraqi journalist in Iraq, not an American journalist in the White House Rose Garden.
But you're right, it was hilarious.
If George had caught the shoes and thrown them back it would have been the greatest thing ever.


Honestly, I think Bush missed a good opportunity. Instead of letting the dude get jailed and tortured, he should have asked for his release and given him an interview.
2012-06-15 09:53:55 PM
2 votes:

Blink:
We really need a Whack-a-Troll option in these threads.


If everyone who made a provocative statement on this site (including yourself) got the ban hammer, Drew's kids would have to go to public school.
2012-06-15 08:34:37 PM
2 votes:

Mikey1969: Why are the Republicans suddenly trying to out low-class one another?


the president is near.
2012-06-15 08:09:23 PM
2 votes:
Shut your farking mouth while the President is talking.
2012-06-15 05:13:50 PM
2 votes:

Darth_Lukecash: Thomas: Very little. We were too busy Americanizing our parents... All the best to you.[51]
-May 27, 2010, RabbiLive.com [46]


So she probably hates Israel. Doesn't make her a jew hater. I'm no fan of Israel and have no problem with jews, either.

But, as NPR said today on the Friday News Round Up: Politics is becoming black and white.

I chucked. I read that 2 ways.
2012-06-15 05:11:54 PM
2 votes:

Darth_Lukecash: doyner: vernonFL: Oh, but its okay to have a 300 year old anti-Semite as the Grand Dame of White House reporting?

You libs are so funny.

What exactly was antisemitic about Helen Thomas' statement?

<snipped for space>

Want to know how I know you don't know what antisemitic means?
2012-06-15 05:11:46 PM
2 votes:

SkinnyHead: Journalists shouldn't interrupt the President. And they shouldn't throw their shoes at the President either. Remember the time when that journalist threw his shoes at President Bush during a press conference. Most FarkLibs thought that was hilarious.


Apologists like yourself are a big part of the problem.

This reporter is a classless scumbag.

Why do you hate America?
2012-06-15 05:10:13 PM
2 votes:

timujin: UPDATE: In a statement, Munro said he misjudged when Obama was ending his speech.

So he's an asshole and a liar, how very surprising.


He'll have a weekend show on Fox News by the end of July.
2012-06-15 05:07:28 PM
2 votes:
UPDATE: In a statement, Munro said he misjudged when Obama was ending his speech.

So he's an asshole and a liar, how very surprising.
2012-06-15 04:52:51 PM
2 votes:

vernonFL: Oh, but its okay to have a 300 year old anti-Semite as the Grand Dame of White House reporting?

You libs are so funny.


Helen Thomas never interrupted any President while he was making a statement. Politeness counts.

Helen Thomas had her own views that she voiced (She was an opinion columnist), and reaped the rewards of saying such things.
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-06-15 04:44:00 PM
2 votes:

SkinnyHead: Journalists shouldn't interrupt the President. And they shouldn't throw their shoes at the President either. Remember the time when that journalist threw his shoes at President Bush during a press conference. Most FarkLibs thought that was hilarious.


Yes, I am sure Obama's invasion of Ireland sparked this incident. Exactly the same thing.
2012-06-15 04:43:36 PM
2 votes:

SkinnyHead: Most FarkLibs thought that was hilarious.


Deep lies with SkinnyHead.
2012-06-15 03:33:05 PM
2 votes:
By the time this story get greened, the news cycle will already have moved on.
2012-06-17 10:47:54 AM
1 votes:

ExperianScaresCthulhu: The Lone Gunman: Chimperror2: It's not like he threw a shoe at him or anything.

Really? What American journalist threw a shoe at a President?

The journalist who threw a shoe at Bush did it because he was pissed off that he ransacked his country just to outdo his dad, who was a better President.

The guy from the Caller did it because he wants to be famous and because he wants to jump on the 'No respect under any circumstances for Obama' train.

....

But go on, please tell us how the Democrats and Republicans are the exact same.

They are. You, for instance, just excused the behavior in one case because you disagree with the target and agreed with the assaulter's reasons; but in the other case, you agree with the target and disagree with the assaulter's reasons. The guy from the Caller and the dude who threw the shoe feel exactly the same way towards their targets and could give you deeply felt reasons why they feel the way they do. It doesn't matter whether you personally agree with one assaulter's reasons, and dismiss the other assualter's reasons. In the end, they are both the same.

Neither one of them had any business disrespecting the Office.

It's wrong to excuse one, because you hate the guy, and condemn the other, because you love the guy.


I don't remember a single liberal "excusing" the shoe guy. A lot of us thought it was funny, because Bush was a piece of shiat, but none of us thought it was excusable. And certainly, if an American reporter had done it, no one would've defended him as being in the right (though we still would've thought it was funny).
In this instance, some conservatives are acknowledging that what the Daily Caller guy did was wrong, (while still having enjoyed watching up), but a few like Tucker Carlson and some Fark commenters are actually pretending that he didn't do anything wrong at all. They're saying things like "what's wrong with a reporter asking the President a question?", as if that were the issue. It's laughably dishonest and shows their utter lack of integrity. It would be like if some liberals after the shoe incident were saying, "what? It's wrong to be angry at the President?"
2012-06-17 06:41:01 AM
1 votes:

chuggernaught: You don't have to respect the man, but you do have to respect the office. It is unacceptable and rude to interrupt a person giving a speech.

Additionally, what happened to all the pricks lining up to scream about not back talking the President while we are at war? Guess that doesn't count when it's a black president.

/bunch of farking racists.


when george washington was president, thomas jefferson orchestrated a whisper campaign alleging that washington was senile and that hamilton was the defacto head of the administration. politics has always been a nasty business, and neither side has a problem with it unless it's their guy getting smeared, unfortunately
2012-06-17 12:26:42 AM
1 votes:

o5iiawah: If you passed 2nd grade reading class, those words should be pretty clear to you. I also cant find any sort of "If confused, issue executive order and proceed to Free parking" clause which you're trying to argue exists, should exist or ought to exist - well, just because.



I have indeed passed 2nd grade reading class. And no, you won't find any other language other than what you have presented. I never said there was such language.

However, if you truly think that the President's powers are literally limited to only those things in Article 2 of the Constitution, then how do you explain... well, pretty much every single president in modern times, Republican or Democrat, having powers way beyond what is outlined in Article 2?

Or are you just blind to history?
2012-06-16 09:15:38 PM
1 votes:

badhatharry: eddiesocket: badhatharry: This is not that complicated. Congress made laws about how to deal with illegal immigrants. Obama said, "fark all that. I'm doing it my way." Congress has been made irrelevant. This is not how things are supposed to work in America. He is dictating the law of the land from the White House lawn. I call that dictatorship. He doesn't have to suspend elections to be a dictator. That comes latter.

You see, I'm a liberal Obama supporter, and I admit I don't know enough yet to know if he's violating the Constitution. Your argument started out well, but then you devolved into pants-shiatting nonsense about Marshall Law, leaving me no choice to conclude you're a fool, and your earlier, more rational-sounding argument must be dismissed as well. It's why you guys are still losing, despite the fact that the economy's still in the tank. Maybe you guys have some good ideas; hell, it's likely you have some good ideas. But they're drowned out by talk of birth certificates and dictatorships and evil homosexshals and calling women whores. You guys are spinning out. Do better. It's no good for the country to have only one viable party. It leads to absolute power and corruption. I only hope that when you lose in November, you'll finally settle the fark down and come back strong in 16 as grownups. For all our sakes.

Thanks. Sorry to frighten you with the word dictator. It used to be more popular. I'll use Administrator or El Presidente from now on if you like.


What I'd like is for Repulicans to behave like they did in the 80's and 90's, when they seems rational and sane. Hell, i even voted for Bush in 2000. Can't imagine myself ever voting for a Republican again, now.
2012-06-16 08:30:20 PM
1 votes:
The point, as I guess the repubs here know privately, is that every single reporter has questions they would like to ask.. and literally millions would like to talk to or ask questions of someone in that position. If every one of those just opened their mouth the instant he was in the same space as them, or whenever they felt would give them personally the most publicity, then that person would have no choice but to never ever put themselves in front of these people. No more white house press corps following him around, because he could never do anything or say anything without being swamped in idiot questions and attention-whoring. Press only there when it is allocated question answering time.

If a president never took questions then there would be a legitimate case for people to try and 'ambush' them with questions, This is very far indeed from the case though, there are q&a sessions all the time.

If you decide to make every second a person is in the room with anyone other than staff a question and answer session then they will have to severely restrict access, which you probably don't want.
2012-06-16 08:21:15 PM
1 votes:

badhatharry: This is not that complicated. Congress made laws about how to deal with illegal immigrants. Obama said, "fark all that. I'm doing it my way." Congress has been made irrelevant. This is not how things are supposed to work in America. He is dictating the law of the land from the White House lawn. I call that dictatorship. He doesn't have to suspend elections to be a dictator. That comes latter.


You see, I'm a liberal Obama supporter, and I admit I don't know enough yet to know if he's violating the Constitution. Your argument started out well, but then you devolved into pants-shiatting nonsense about Marshall Law, leaving me no choice to conclude you're a fool, and your earlier, more rational-sounding argument must be dismissed as well. It's why you guys are still losing, despite the fact that the economy's still in the tank. Maybe you guys have some good ideas; hell, it's likely you have some good ideas. But they're drowned out by talk of birth certificates and dictatorships and evil homosexshals and calling women whores. You guys are spinning out. Do better. It's no good for the country to have only one viable party. It leads to absolute power and corruption. I only hope that when you lose in November, you'll finally settle the fark down and come back strong in 16 as grownups. For all our sakes.
2012-06-16 07:13:25 PM
1 votes:

9beers: Hideously Gigantic Smurf: Yes, how dare he try to broaden his appeal when he could be alienating demographic after demographic on a practically daily basis like the GOP?

Yes, lets just let everybody into the goddamn country.


I say we trade an equal number of bucktoothed nationalists for skilled foreigners who still see America as a beacon of hope and endless possibility rather than what 'merkins see it as: "MY pile of sh*t. MINE."
2012-06-16 06:50:35 PM
1 votes:

Jack's Cracker: The thread is simply infested.


And most likely from the same person as well.
2012-06-16 05:00:10 PM
1 votes:

o5iiawah: LeoffDaGrate: o5iiawah: LeoffDaGrate: Whether you try to define it as "changing policy," "creating laws," or some other some such nonsense, what the President has proposed is obviously Constitutional,

Again, I ask you to find the language in article II, which gives the executive the power to do this.

Again, welcome to reality, you delusional soul. If all your basing your argument on is what was originally written in article II of the Constitution, then I have some terrible, terrible news for you...

In other words, you cant find anything in article 2, which empowers the president to make or alter laws. Good day, sir.



I will concede to you that yes, there is nothing specific in article 2 of the Constitution that empowers the president to make or alter laws if YOU concede that article 2 is vague enough in wording that there is nothing preventing him to issue executive orders which, by loose definition, are themselves altered laws.

In other words, you are correct that article 2 doesn't say that. You are incorrect in thinking, however, that the President's power doesn't end with article 2.

Welcome to reality, my friend. Seriously, get off the article 2 crap and try another tactic to attack him. It's old, it's stale, and not even constitutional scholars are agreeing with you.

(unless, of course, you somehow know more than the country's legal experts and analysts?)
2012-06-16 04:27:59 PM
1 votes:

o5iiawah: Dan the Schman: It's not like he created a law out of whole cloth, he issued an order to enforce a law that Republicans proposed but couldn't get through Congress.

if the DREAM act hasn't passed through congress, then it isn't law.
The power to create, amend or dissolve laws is granted to the congress, not the president. So says article 1, section 1 of the supreme law of our country.

You can get butthurt about this all you want about how republicans are delusional, stupid, irrational and any other pejorative you want. The fact remains is that you have no argument on this.


Neither do you. There are existing laws inside Title 8 that allow the DoJ to loosen deportation requirements for illegal immigrants that meet certain criteria. As head of the executive branch, Obama is well within his power to instruct DoJ to do that via executive order. No laws have been broken.
2012-06-16 04:04:27 PM
1 votes:

o5iiawah: Dan the Schman: Here's how debate works, you've made the claim that Obama is violating Constitutional Law, the onus is on YOU to back up that claim, and "Read the Constitution" doesn't count. You have to actually explain how Obama is breaking the law.

The funny thing is, Article 2 outlines the duties and powers of the president. There is no power granted to the president to alter or make laws. If you can find any language, words or insinuations that the president has the authority to make or alter laws, I'll concede the argument.

The power to make or change laws is granted to the congress, which is explained in Article 1.

Article. I.

Section. 1.

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

blah blah blah. constitution.


blah blah blah

It's not like he created a law out of whole cloth, he issued an order to enforce a law that Republicans proposed but couldn't get through Congress.

Why aren't they happy? Oh yeah, because Republicans MUST oppose EVERYTHING Obama does.

He killed Osama? "Why couldn't he have been taken alive? Now you made him a martyr!"
He cut taxes? "No he didn't, he RAISED taxes!"
He put $70 Billion in tax cuts in the Stimulus, at the specific request of a Republican? "There was NO bipartisan effort"
He passed Rubio's DREAM Act? "He's breaking the law!!!!!!"

Republicans are literally insane. Their arguments are delusional and their actions are deranged.
2012-06-16 03:59:25 PM
1 votes:

o5iiawah: Fart_Machine: You realize that changing policy isn't the same thing right? Oh never mind you're another troll.

Haha, when you have no argument - just calling someone a troll doesn't make you right.

There's no 'changing policy' here. This is the president establishing criteria by which illegal individuals can stay in this country. It is, by definition, making or changing immigration law, something which he has no authority to do.

Furthermore, "changing policy" isn't a defined role of the president as well. He can sign treaties or laws given to him by the congress or make speeches but ultimately it is up to the congress to codify it into law. Welcome to 2nd grade civics.


So when the President announced that drug policy would be changed in regard to medical marijuana users back in 2009 even though it still violated Federal Law you were calling him a dictator back then too.

/would have been nice if they stuck with it.
2012-06-16 03:54:18 PM
1 votes:
This is not that complicated. Congress made laws about how to deal with illegal immigrants. Obama said, "fark all that. I'm doing it my way." Congress has been made irrelevant. This is not how things are supposed to work in America. He is dictating the law of the land from the White House lawn. I call that dictatorship. He doesn't have to suspend elections to be a dictator. That comes latter.
2012-06-16 03:41:08 PM
1 votes:
I'm no fan of Obama, but I have enough respect for the Office not to breach decorum on such an insane manner.

Not that I'd ever have any face time with any President, past or present ... just sayin'.
2012-06-16 03:04:34 PM
1 votes:

badhatharry: The ones on the books that this constitutional scholar is talking about. Link


So, no laws have been broken?
2012-06-16 02:49:35 PM
1 votes:
Obama waits for the useless Republicans in Congress to get their shiat together and do their job: "LAZIEST PRESIDENT EVAR!!! EMPTY SUIT!! GOLF!!!"

Obama says 'Fark this' and gets something done: "HISTORY'S GREATEST MONSTAR! KENYAN DICTATOR IMPEEEEEEACH"
2012-06-16 02:49:19 PM
1 votes:

thamike: badhatharry: thamike: badhatharry: Decorum and respect go out the window when the President decides to become a dictator. If he is not going to respect tradition why should anyone else. I expect he's going to get yelled at a lot more.

Tradition? Like trick-or-treating?

The tradition of the president obeying and enforcing the laws passed by Congress. I guess it's technically a law and not a tradition. But since the executive branch enforces the law, what is Congress or the Supreme court going to do about it.

So not tradition, but law. Okay. We can put the tradition thing to bed then, yes? What law has been broken?


The one that says republican presidents can interpret long standing laws but democratic presidents can not.
2012-06-16 02:34:07 PM
1 votes:

o5iiawah: I'm also curious as to where you heard that the president's job is to interpret laws.


Have you guys already forgotten your czar hunt? Did you even know why you were outraged by Obama's "unprecedented czar appointments?" Or do you just hop from one platform to the next, completely forgetting the past and having no clue what you will do next? Truly, right wing logic is like an early Donkey Kong game.
2012-06-16 02:22:22 PM
1 votes:
Getting generationally dumber and coarser as the middle class collapses into squalor, producing human filth like this.
2012-06-16 02:08:54 PM
1 votes:

Jack's Cracker: Goodness, I see I should have bought more TrollKill(r) spray while at Home Depot. The thread is simply infested.


The talking points were put out almost right away on this one. I believe that the propaganda machine was tipped off earlier in the day that this was going to happen. My idiot teabagger co-worker was spouting the same tripe you've seen in this thread almost immediately after the announcement was made.
2012-06-16 02:00:33 PM
1 votes:

o5iiawah: Fart_Machine: You realize that changing policy isn't the same thing right? Oh never mind you're another troll.

Haha, when you have no argument - just calling someone a troll doesn't make you right.

There's no 'changing policy' here. This is the president establishing criteria by which illegal individuals can stay in this country. It is, by definition, making or changing immigration law, something which he has no authority to do.

Furthermore, "changing policy" isn't a defined role of the president as well. He can sign treaties or laws given to him by the congress or make speeches but ultimately it is up to the congress to codify it into law. Welcome to 2nd grade civics.


Pass the god damned DREAM Act legislation (which is identical to what this policy change does) that's been sitting in front of this do nothing horrific republican house for years now. Jesus H Christ you farking republican apologists are so god damned thick headed and thin skinned.

And, by the way, the executive branch has a DUTY to interpret poorly worded legislation.
2012-06-16 01:59:59 PM
1 votes:

lennavan: Fark you, Tucker Carlson, Daily Caller and your shiat reporter for making me agree with something Geraldo Rivera wrote.

[static01.mediaite.com image 497x279]


Geraldo seems to be drawing a line in the sand.
2012-06-16 01:41:27 PM
1 votes:
www.daybydaycartoon.com
2012-06-16 01:33:05 PM
1 votes:
Funny how no one here as pointed out that what Obama proposed in his speech is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Barry's not a king; he doesn't just get to waive his hand and make it happen.
2012-06-16 01:21:02 PM
1 votes:

Dr. Mojo PhD: Friction8r: Fark Liberal Circle Jerk Club!

I always had to wonder why conservatives trotted this out. Here's the problem I see with this inane Hive Mind/Circle Jerk nonsense.

First it tends to be paraded as a thought whenever the conservative is suffering disagreement with the vast majority of people. Then they pull that card out. Why? If everybody suddenly did an about face and agreed with the con, would it suddenly be less of a hive mind? Of course not, it would be the exact same thing. It's reaction formation, of course -- decrying the hive mind mentality because one is frustrated that that is precisely what one cannot achieve.

It also smacks of the "do you always have to be right?" mentality (does anybody actually argue for the sake of being wrong? If so, shouldn't the person who actually believes that people must fill some mandatory wrongness quota be the one to concede? -- but you will note that they never do that) the makes up so much of special pleading.

We can see hive mind/circle jerk mentality, of course, but it so often originates with the right. One can see it most of all be displaying the echo chamber effect, where if they go to sanitized sites that (unlike Fark) actively suppress dissonant thought, such as Free Republic, posters continue to make posts simply to agree with each other and repeat little mantras. If liberals are stupid enough or trolly enough to wade into such a morass, the hive mind mentality expresses itself through constant evasion and non sequitur, and a failure to challenge the topics directly.

A lot of people agreeing with each other is neither a circle jerk nor a hive mind by any stretch of the imagination; it's just a lot of people agreeing with each other. They may be doing it because they're all equally right, or they may be doing it because they're all equally wrong. It is not hive mind mentality to take as axiomatic that 1 + 1 = 2, for example; it's simply correct. One will do well to note that the ones who pointlessly accuse without citing evidence are the ones who are, of course, always wrong.


Very well put. I have you highlit in my "read these guys' posts" color for comments like these. But lemme play devil's morons' advocate for a moment --

Sometimes this place is a refining crucible, other times it's a pasta kitchen.

One example, that time 3 or 4 years ago when some of our independents were unusually active, and it took a few days before someone coined the bsabsvr phrase. The new formulation didn't change any of our minds, it was just pithy and convenient. We adopted it as a shorthand.

And most of us come here trying to make sense of things. We toss ideas out there and sometimes we see them come back to us if/when other farkers think they make sense. Other times we'll repeat points we've heard others make when it's pertinent.

A dimwitted critic will call this an echo chamber but it's not. It's how discussion forums work. Hell, it's how human communication works in general... but that's the rationale for calling this place a liberal circle jerk as best I can figure out.
2012-06-16 12:55:05 PM
1 votes:

vernonFL: Oh, but its okay to have a 300 year old anti-Semite as the Grand Dame of White House reporting?

You libs are so funny.


Disagreeing with Israel's policies concerning the Palestinians does not make one an anti-Semite no more than disagreeing with Obamacare makes one anti-American
2012-06-16 12:53:17 PM
1 votes:

badhatharry: Decorum and respect go out the window when the President decides to become a dictator.


Not sure if trolling or just stupid.
2012-06-16 12:01:39 PM
1 votes:

Linux_Yes: i bet that right wing corporate owned f*ck never gets a chance to be at a Obama White House press conference again.


hope he enjoyed it.


Although it's important to note that this WASN'T a press conference.

It was an official announcement.

There was never any intent to take questions.
2012-06-16 11:46:01 AM
1 votes:

lennavan: Fark you, Tucker Carlson, Daily Caller and your shiat reporter for making me agree with something Geraldo Rivera wrote.

[static01.mediaite.com image 497x279]


Wow. When your journalistic integrity is below Geraldo's exacting standards, you've got problems.
2012-06-16 11:41:36 AM
1 votes:

OgreMagi: So let me see if I understand how things stand now.

The president decides he is going to ignore our immigration laws, subverting our entire system of government by ignoring Congress.

He announces this this to a bunch of reporters.

Since the president has gotten into the habit of not taking questions after making announcements, a reporter attempts to squeeze in a question when the president is finished speechifying.

A reporter asking a question is considered on the same level as some random person heckling.

Got it.


That's the funny think about Immigration procedures, much of it is based on Rules, not Laws. The Laws essentially say something to the effect of the government will establish Rules to control who is and is not allowed in the country. The Administration makes the rules and can change them any way they want. No Laws are being ignored or broken. If Congress doesn't like it they can pass a specific Law to stop it.
2012-06-16 11:31:13 AM
1 votes:

Fart_Machine: I was told that America was the land of limitless opportunity and that if you're poor then you just aren't bootstrappy enough and deserve it. Every REAL American knows that.


I am the son of legal immigrants who came here and legally became citizens so they could legally have those opportunities available to them. I am really a big fan of legal immigration. I am not a fan at all of rewarding illegal acts with privileges afforded to legal citizens.
Why not address the illegal activities and actions?
2012-06-16 11:15:24 AM
1 votes:

Linux_Yes: \

CONservatives Most people who post on Fark political threads are like children. when things aren't going their way they stomp, and whine, and pout, and stick their finger in faces, etc.


FIFY
2012-06-16 11:03:03 AM
1 votes:
Fark you, Tucker Carlson, Daily Caller and your shiat reporter for making me agree with something Geraldo Rivera wrote.

static01.mediaite.com
2012-06-16 11:01:49 AM
1 votes:
I would have liked to see this farkwad pull this shiat on LBJ. He would have picked him up by his ears and kicked his ass out the door.
2012-06-16 11:01:01 AM
1 votes:
Daily Caller right wing corporate owned reporterf*ck completes the final stage of his Fox News interview........
2012-06-16 10:59:27 AM
1 votes:

Edsel: Best part is that this douchebag is an immigrant who married for citizenship.


Irish-born American reporter He received citizenship a month prior to 9/11.



Also that's not having balls. It's being a dick.
2012-06-16 10:58:10 AM
1 votes:

vernonFL: Oh, but its okay to have a 300 year old anti-Semite as the Grand Dame of White House reporting?

You libs are so funny.


She got bounced pretty hard if I remember correctly, and I don't think she ever spoke out of turn.
2012-06-16 10:25:31 AM
1 votes:
Best part is that this douchebag is an immigrant who married for citizenship.
2012-06-16 09:43:37 AM
1 votes:
The amnesty has to be reissued every 2 years. That means a future prez could revoke it and have all the info he needs to round up the illegals who applied and deport them.
2012-06-16 09:29:54 AM
1 votes:
the president didn't answer the question. Of coarse the illegals, the people who Obama is talking about can contribute great things to America, but the question was why he favors giving them the opportunity over giving Americans that opportunity. There are only so many slots to fill, less slots will be filled with real American citizens if we give illegal aliens more slots. The president ignored the this as if there are an infinite number of opportunities.
2012-06-16 09:08:02 AM
1 votes:
white house correspondent rules.
you can heckle the president
you can be Karl Rove's gay escort.
but you can't be a member for 50 yrs and say something disapproving about Israel's occupation of Palestine.
2012-06-16 03:15:54 AM
1 votes:

OgreMagi: The president decides he is going to ignore our immigration laws, subverting our entire system of government by ignoring Congress.


cloudfront.mediamatters.org

www.libertymusings.com

But thanks for playing.
2012-06-16 03:10:26 AM
1 votes:
Poor Tucker. He just hasn't been okay since Jon Stewart ruined his asshole.
2012-06-16 01:29:07 AM
1 votes:
This is going to be a long god damn election year. No matter who wins, we will all be covered in shiat and smelling like it when its over. I wish I could just turn off the world till 2013.
2012-06-16 01:13:34 AM
1 votes:

beta_plus: Sabyen91: beta_plus: You guys really have no shame with your intellectual dishonesty. I must say, it provides endless entertainment.

Want an example of intellectual dishonesty?

beta_plus: It was wrong and childish when the congressmen did it to Bush, it's wrong now when a journalist is doing it to Obama. I'm sorry you and your conservative comrades are all too immature to understand that.

WAAAAAAAHHHHHHH! He's the one!!! YOU CAN'T DO THAT TO HIM!!!

You know damn well that was a cop out and I was calling him out on it.

If you want to fling poo at the President you don't like - fine - do it. As long as it's not real poo (Secret Service frowns on that), that is your right as an American and I will fight to the death for your right to do it.

But don't start getting butthurt and making excuses when someone does it to a President that you like. That's just being a poor sport.

/Both sides are equally bad!!!
//So re-elect Obama!


So the office of President doesn't deserve any respect? That's what you're saying? And I assume this also applies to any Congressmen or Governors or Senators or ANY elected official; I mean, if the most powerful man in the free world doesn't deserve a modicum of respect, then surely no one less powerful than him deserves any.

I just want this on record for future reference.

I'm sure I won't need it, it's not like you're some kind of hypocrite or anything. I have no doubt you'll never ever ever show up in a thread where a Republican was interrupted or disrespected by a Democrat.
2012-06-16 01:13:14 AM
1 votes:

Shaggy_C: Remember that thread when the crowd booed Bush at a baseball game when he walked up to throw the ceremonial pitch?


Remember when that same crowd was composed entirely of credentialed members of the White House Press Corps that was there to observe and report on the ceremonial pitch without crossing the line between news reporting and news making?

No?

Well, remember when you flunked out of college because your Crit. Thinking prof told you you still couldn't figure out what false equivalence and invalid analogy were?

Yeah? You remember that better, you say?

Now you know why.
2012-06-15 11:26:50 PM
1 votes:

beta_plus: Sabyen91: beta_plus: You guys really have no shame with your intellectual dishonesty. I must say, it provides endless entertainment.

Want an example of intellectual dishonesty?

beta_plus: It was wrong and childish when the congressmen did it to Bush, it's wrong now when a journalist is doing it to Obama. I'm sorry you and your conservative comrades are all too immature to understand that.

WAAAAAAAHHHHHHH! He's the one!!! YOU CAN'T DO THAT TO HIM!!!

You know damn well that was a cop out and I was calling him out on it.

If you want to fling poo at the President you don't like - fine - do it. As long as it's not real poo (Secret Service frowns on that), that is your right as an American and I will fight to the death for your right to do it.

But don't start getting butthurt and making excuses when someone does it to a President that you like. That's just being a poor sport.

/Both sides are equally bad!!!
//So re-elect Obama!


WTF are you talking about? Who flung poo at a President? Are you asserting that it's really okay to interrupt a President who is giving remarks? The "liberal media" did not do this while a war criminal was in the White House.

False analogy is false.
2012-06-15 11:25:06 PM
1 votes:

Bucky Katt: Dusk-You-n-Me: We are very proud of, @NeilMunroDC for doing his job- The Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) June 15, 2012

So he's a professional asshole?


Kinda fitting when the Daily Caller was founded by the biggest professional asshole of them all.
2012-06-15 11:19:37 PM
1 votes:

beta_plus: Sabyen91: beta_plus: You know damn well that was a cop out and I was calling him out on it.

It was? You were? It looked like blatant dishonesty to me.

Wow. You think that I'm stupid enough to trust you.


Conservatives of all ages: The dogs who bark while the caravan of humanity moves on. So long, loser.
2012-06-15 11:10:17 PM
1 votes:

VictoryCabal: I remember a lot of liberals being impressed with Bush's cat like reflexes.


i75.photobucket.com

Oddly enough this keeps reminding me of Jeff Gannon, y'all remember him right? This is like the reverse, where instead of republicans hiring plants to lob softballs it is republicans hiring plants to throw tomatoes.
2012-06-15 10:48:23 PM
1 votes:

BizarroHulk: Respect the office if not the man.


NAH
that only counts for GOP presidents. LOL
the dem presidents dont count

LOLOLOLOLOL
2012-06-15 10:42:12 PM
1 votes:

beta_plus: Sabyen91: beta_plus: Splinshints: beta_plus: /it's not disrespect when we heckle the president!

Pathetic. The best you can come up with "but they did it once too!"

It was wrong and childish when the congressmen did it to Bush, it's wrong now when a journalist is doing it to Obama. I'm sorry you and your conservative comrades are all too immature to understand that.

WAAAAAAAHHHHHHH! He's the one!!! YOU CAN'T DO THAT TO HIM!!!

Strawman.

Throwing out a logical fallacy that is not relevant and one does not actually understand - classic Fark Lib tactic.


static.ddmcdn.com

You shouldn't be so obvious with this.
2012-06-15 10:38:19 PM
1 votes:

3StratMan: This was acceptable though...

[www.thefringepodcast.com image 460x346]

Go ahead...try to convince me that you think it wasn't.


I don't remember him being part of the WH press corp. Weird.
2012-06-15 10:37:00 PM
1 votes:

3StratMan: This was acceptable though...

[www.thefringepodcast.com image 460x346]

Go ahead...try to convince me that you think it wasn't.


Maybe because it was in Iraq and it was in front of a mostly Iraqi audience?

/You didn't think this one out well did you?
2012-06-15 10:28:24 PM
1 votes:

3StratMan: This was acceptable though...

[www.thefringepodcast.com image 460x346]

Go ahead...try to convince me that you think it wasn't.


It wasn't. My initial reaction to that was WTF who saw that coming. But you can go on with your phony persecution complex that you conservatives have turned into an art form over the past few years.

And what the hell, we don't have a thread for the guy crossing Niagara Falls?
2012-06-15 10:20:47 PM
1 votes:

soy_bomb: jso2897: The funny thing is that the respect for the Presidency was destroyed by a Republican.
The party of white punks whose guns won't save them in the end.

[ocveganista.files.wordpress.com image 297x353]


Or, you know, OG of the corrupt:
upload.wikimedia.org

List of Reagan administration convictions.

"By the end of his term, 138 Reagan administration officials had been convicted, had been indicted, or had been the subject of official investigations for official misconduct and/or criminal violations. In terms of number of officials involved, the record of his administration was the worst ever."

1. Lyn Nofziger--White House Press Secretary - Convicted on charges of illegal lobbying of White House in Wedtech scandal. The lobbying would not have been illegal had he not been White House Press Secretary.

2. Michael Deaver, Reagan's Chief of Staff, received three years' probation and was fined one hundred thousand dollars after being convicted for lying to a congressional subcommittee and a federal grand jury about his lobbying activities after leaving the White House. Same as with Lyn Nofziger.

3. James Watt, Reagan's Secretary of the Interior was indicted on 41 felony counts for using connections at the Department of Housing and Urban Development to help his private clients seek federal funds for housing projects in Maryland, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. Watt conceded that he had received $500,000 from clients who were granted very favorable housing contracts after he had intervened on their behalf. Watt was eventually sentenced to five years in prison and 500 hours of community service.

4. John Poindexter, Reagan's national security advisor, guilty of five criminal counts involving conspiracy to mislead Congress, obstructing congressional inquiries, lying to lawmakers, used "high national security" to mask deceit and wrong-doing...

5. Richard Secord pleaded guilty to a felony charge of lying to Congress over Iran-Contra. Appointed by William Casey to assist Oliver North.

6. Elliott Abrams was appointed by President Reagan in 1985 to head the State Department's Latin American Bureau. He was closely linked with ex-White House aide Lt. Col. Oliver North's covert movement to aid the Contras. Working for North, Abrams coordinated inter-agency support for the contras and helped solicit illegal funding from foreign powers as well as domestic contributors. Abrams agreed to cooperate with Iran-Contra investigators and pled guilty to two charges reduced to misdemeanors. He was sentenced in 1991 to two years probation and 100 hours of community service but was pardoned by President George Bush...

7. Robert C. McFarlane, Reagan's National Security Advisor, pled guilty to four misdemeanors and was sentenced to two years probation and 200 hours of community service. He was also fined $20,000. He received a blanket pardon from President George Bush...

8. Alan D. Fiers was the Chief of the Central Intelligence Agency's Central American Task Force. Fiers pled guilty in 1991 to two counts of withholding information from congress about Oliver North's activities and the diversion of Iran arms sale money to aid the Contras. He was sentenced to one year of probation and 100 hours of community service. Alan Fiers received a blanket pardon for his crimes from President Bush...

Thomas G. Clines: convicted of four counts of tax-related offenses for failing to report income from the operations;

Carl R. Channel - Office of Public Diplomacy , partner in International Business- first person convicted in the Iran/Contra scandal, pleaded guilty of one count of defrauding the United States

Richard R. Miller - Partner with Oliver North in IBC, a Office of Public Diplomacy front group, convicted of conspiracy to defraud the United States.

Frank Gomez

13.. Donald Fortier

Clair George was Chief of the CIA's Division of Covert Operations under President Reagan. George was convicted of lying to two congressional committees in 1986. George faced a maximum five year federal prison sentence and a $20,000 fine for each of the two convictions. Jurors cleared George of five other charges including two counts of lying to a federal grand jury. Clair George received a blanket pardon for his crimes from President George Bush...

Rita Lavelle was indicted, tried and convicted of lying to Congress and served three months of a six-month prison sentence.

Philip Winn - Assistant HUD Secretary. Pleaded guilty to one count of scheming to give illegal gratuities.

Thomas Demery - Assistand HUD Secretary - pleaded guilty to steering HUD subsidies to politically connected donors.

Deborah Gore Dean - executive assistant to Samuel Pierce - indicted on thirteen counts, three counts of conspiracy, one count of accepting an illegal gratuity, four counts of perjury, and five counts of concealing articles. She was convicted on twelve accounts. She appealed and prevailed on several accounts but the convictions for conspiracy remained.

Catalina Villaponda - Former US Treasurer

Joseph A. Strauss - Accepting kickbacks from developers

Oliver North - He was indicted on sixteen felony counts and on May 4, 1989, he was convicted of three: accepting an illegal gratuity, aiding and abetting in the obstruction of a congressional inquiry, and destruction of documents (by his secretary, Fawn Hall, on his instructions). He was sentenced by U.S. District Judge Gerhard A. Gesell on July 5, 1989, to a three-year suspended prison term, two years probation, $150,000 in fines, and 1,200 hours community service. His conviction was later overturned.
2012-06-15 10:11:32 PM
1 votes:

Vodka Zombie: Tucker Carlson has really turned into a pathetic coont.


You're implying that there was a time when he wasn't a pathetic coont?
2012-06-15 09:57:43 PM
1 votes:
I would like to see any reporter from any news source (except the good folks at Rolling Stone and Vanity Fair) do any reporting whatsoever that is not reading verbatim the press release from the people who they are reporting on. Good lord journalism is horrible today.
2012-06-15 09:54:32 PM
1 votes:

SkinnyHead: Journalists shouldn't interrupt the President. And they shouldn't throw their shoes at the President either. Remember the time when that journalist threw his shoes at President Bush during a press conference. Most FarkLibs thought that was hilarious.


Even if they did think it was funny, the reporter who was arrested, tortured and he was sentenced to three years in prison (reduced to one year) and released after nine months. Seems fair in this case as well?
2012-06-15 09:47:20 PM
1 votes:

OgreMagi: So let me see if I understand how things stand now.

The president decides he is going to ignore our immigration laws, subverting our entire system of government by ignoring Congress.

He announces this this to a bunch of reporters.

Since the president has gotten into the habit of not taking questions after making announcements, a reporter attempts to squeeze in a question when the president is finished speechifying.

A reporter asking a question is considered on the same level as some random person heckling.

Got it.



We really need a Whack-a-Troll option in these threads.
2012-06-15 09:44:52 PM
1 votes:

OgreMagi: Got it.


Try again.
2012-06-15 09:35:02 PM
1 votes:

jso2897: The funny thing is that the respect for the Presidency was destroyed by a Republican.
The party of white punks whose guns won't save them in the end.


ocveganista.files.wordpress.com
2012-06-15 09:34:42 PM
1 votes:
They will pull his press pass and the Daily Caller will loose access to press events. They will whine and moan and gnash their teeth but that's the way it goes.
2012-06-15 09:23:15 PM
1 votes:

soy_bomb: baronbloodbath: Because next time, he's just going to have the Secret Service put a boot in his ass, cut off his nutsack, and send it via courier to Tucker Carlson.

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 629x502]


No one's going to take away his free speech.

He won't be anywhere near the President, but he can still shout like a little biatch if he wants.
2012-06-15 09:09:56 PM
1 votes:

baronbloodbath: Because next time, he's just going to have the Secret Service put a boot in his ass, cut off his nutsack, and send it via courier to Tucker Carlson.


2.bp.blogspot.com
2012-06-15 09:05:31 PM
1 votes:

Brick-House: I don't like PresidentObama, I feel he's in way over his head and is the most un-presidential President that I can think of. But that guy was an ass. You do not interrupt the President.


Fixed for you. So what, troll account, has he done that's so un-Presidential?
2012-06-15 09:05:24 PM
1 votes:
Give his press pass a 30 day suspension and let it serve as a lesson to future douchebags.

/prefer it revoked, but don't want to hear more conservative whining
2012-06-15 08:51:57 PM
1 votes:

Lionel Mandrake: vernonFL: Oh, but its okay to have a 300 year old anti-Semite as the Grand Dame of White House reporting?

You libs are so funny.

So it's OK to be a jerk if you can point to an occurrence when someone else was a jerk?

You cons are so funny


The party of personal responsibility.
2012-06-15 08:50:56 PM
1 votes:
[X] Show posts from attention whores

Splinshints: [X] Show posts from ignored users
soy_bomb: [images.huffingtonpost.com image 282x323]
PROUD
/what kind of white house reporter actually asks the President a question?
Oh, man, you never disappoint, do you? You must be the mold that morons are carved out of.


/farkers that ballyhoo their ignore lists are so cool!
2012-06-15 08:39:48 PM
1 votes:
images.huffingtonpost.com
PROUD


/what kind of white house reporter actually asks the President a question?
2012-06-15 08:35:01 PM
1 votes:

Mikey1969: From a professional standpoint, this is as rude as that Joe Wilson guy screaming 'You lie!'. Why are the Republicans suddenly trying to out low-class one another?


Because that's all they've got?
2012-06-15 08:33:08 PM
1 votes:
Anyone else notice how these "conservatives" want to blame everything on Muslims, Mexicans, the Chinese, homosexuals, loose women and a black man?

Who'd I miss?
2012-06-15 08:11:25 PM
1 votes:
Respect the office if not the man.
2012-06-15 06:10:40 PM
1 votes:

Kimothy: The comments on that article - oh my. People really don't respect the office of the President. Sadly, these are the same "you're a traitor if you disagree with the President" people from ten years ago, who were angered by anyone who dared to disagree with Bush's war policies.

It will only get worse from here. It's like watching the last hundred years of the Roman empire, but with less political murder.


Sadly, nail, meet head. I pin the era of modern trash politics on Newt Gingrich. When he couldn't beat Clinton on policy, he made it scorched earth personal. $75 million congressional committee fishing expedition to investigate Whitewater real estate deals (from years before). Travelgate, Fostergate, Filegate, transitiongate... nothing stuck, but it did damage. GOP stategists took note, and continue these tactics. Issa, "subpeona-king" anyone? Establishment liberals still believe in decorum, so they sit at a disadvantage. Anti-establishment liberals, however, know all too well the new rules of the groundgame and will mic check and take it to the streets from here on out. In the end, the country is left with clusterfark.
2012-06-15 06:10:12 PM
1 votes:

doyner: Cubansaltyballs: doyner: Look, having your parents and grandparents (or non-relatives of your religion) suffer the horrors of genocide give you the moral authority to invade and occupy a different group in a non-related part of the world and Sarah Palin is automatically President. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

You eat pieces of sh*t for breakfast?

Is your sarcasm meter needs tuning.


How DARE you call Sarah Palin an unqualified, narcissistic, money-hungry c*nt.

She's a lazy, unqualified, narcissistic, money-hungry c*nt.
2012-06-15 05:58:43 PM
1 votes:

Darth_Lukecash: timujin: Darth_Lukecash: doyner: vernonFL: Oh, but its okay to have a 300 year old anti-Semite as the Grand Dame of White House reporting?

You libs are so funny.

What exactly was antisemitic about Helen Thomas' statement?

<snipped for space>

Want to know how I know you don't know what antisemitic means?

I made no comment one way or the other. I just posted what she said. It's up to the reader to say if she was being anti-Semitic.

/But telling a group of people to go back to the land where genocide of their people was historical and institutionalized, might be considered negative. Kinda like telling a woman that she has to marry her Rapist or an abused husband to go back to his wife and suck it up.


I guess Native Americans would be justified in occupying Israel by that logic.
2012-06-15 05:38:23 PM
1 votes:

timujin: Darth_Lukecash: doyner: vernonFL: Oh, but its okay to have a 300 year old anti-Semite as the Grand Dame of White House reporting?

You libs are so funny.

What exactly was antisemitic about Helen Thomas' statement?

<snipped for space>

Want to know how I know you don't know what antisemitic means?


It's antisemitic in the same way that saying Sarah Palin is an intellectually incurious, attention-starved fool is misogynistic.
2012-06-15 05:14:18 PM
1 votes:

SkinnyHead: Journalists shouldn't interrupt the President. And they shouldn't throw their shoes at the President either. Remember the time when that journalist threw his shoes at President Bush during a press conference. Most FarkLibs thought that was hilarious.


Hey guess what you can search Fark for articles from that incident, look up the comment sections and copy and paste the comments including Fark handle of anyone who thought that was hilarious, because otherwise we only have your word on that happening.

You could be a liar or retarded.
2012-06-15 04:40:13 PM
1 votes:

SkinnyHead: Journalists shouldn't interrupt the President. And they shouldn't throw their shoes at the President either. Remember the time when that journalist threw his shoes at President Bush during a press conference. Most FarkLibs thought that was hilarious.


STFU skinnyhead.
2012-06-15 04:27:04 PM
1 votes:
what a farking moron
2012-06-15 03:56:06 PM
1 votes:

vpb: Ireland was pretty much a third world country until the 90s.

That's an odd question. If he was not a US citizen and gained his status in the US by marrying a US citizen how would that not make him an immigrant?


I'm sure it makes him imported goods, a mail-order groom, but an immigrant? Let's see.

Looks like he means the definition of an immigrant, according to Dictionary.com.

1. a person who migrates to another country, usually for permanent residence.
2. an organism found in a new habitat.


/I stand corrected. :-)
2012-06-15 03:25:07 PM
1 votes:
It's odd remembering that the GOP used to fancy themselves the Party of Grownups. These days, there seems to be a race to see who can be a "hero" by being crass and obnoxious.
2012-06-15 03:19:50 PM
1 votes:
I highly suggest my fellow Farkers check out @Pres_Bartlet's reactions to this.
2012-06-15 03:17:29 PM
1 votes:
Tucker Carlson has really turned into a pathetic coont. The people he hires seem to be a collection of unhinged failures from bottom-of-the-barrel publications.

I'm thinking that's not a business model that's built to last.
2012-06-15 03:12:06 PM
1 votes:
 
Displayed 131 of 131 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report