HuffPost: Fox News Pulls Sean Hannity From Tea Party Rally

[Seabee1973]

Lol, Fox News is disgusting. They repeatedly get a torn a new ******* every day. They are not a news organization. They are not even journalistic.

Openly supporting a political movement would have been even more proof that they are nothing close to objective. What a disgusting organization.

.

isnt that what NBC ABC CBS and MSNBC do? WHere was the outrage when ABC camped out at the white house promoting the healthcare bill?

[Seabee1973]

With the exception of MSNBC, yep without a doubt.

Take off your liberal glasses

[mistertim]

Oh, I remember a case a few years back where somebody cited an Onion article to support their claim.

That was really entertaining.

That was pretty hilarious.

That being said, I would probably give an Onion article more credibility than a FreeRepublic article. Though the comments section of FR is almost as funny as some of The Onion's articles. Talk about mass insanity/hysteria. You can't get two comments in without seeing "Obama", "Hussein", "Communist", "Muslim", "Terrorist", Baby Killer", "Fascist", "Fraud", etc in some of the same sentences.

[Chicken Fried]

That was pretty hilarious.

That being said, I would probably give an Onion article more credibility than a FreeRepublic article. Though the comments section of FR is almost as funny as some of The Onion's articles. Talk about mass insanity/hysteria. You can't get two comments in without seeing "Obama", "Hussein", "Communist", "Muslim", "Terrorist", Baby Killer", "Fascist", "Fraud", etc in some of the same sentences.

If you don't like it, go read the other three sources saying the exact same thing.

[DCranon21]

Well, it's supported by three other sources. Would you think MSNBC or CNN would report this? Of course not.

Im not trying to hi-jack the thread, but I don't think will get pulled over for a Don't Tread on Me bumper sticker. That story reeks of WND and spread around on the right wing blog sites like wild fire. I have to call B.S. on that story.

[Bliz]

That's not true either. See the following quotation. It's the new Tea Party "Contract for America."

Quote:

(1) Require each bill to identify its constitutional authorization

(2) Defund, repeal, and replace government-run health care

(3) Demand a balanced budget

(4) End runaway government spending by imposing a statutory cap limiting growth in federal spending

(5) Enact fundamental reform to simplify and lower taxes

(6)Create a Blue Ribbon task force that engages in a complete audit of federal agencies and programs

(7) Reject cap-and-trade

(8) Pass an “all of the above” energy policy

(9) Stop the 2011 tax hikes

(10) Stop the pork.

1 - ridiculous. First of all, just because a congressman "identifies" the constitutional authority, doesn't mean you will agree it's there. I suspect very few people who have a pocket copy of the constitution, but have read 0 Supreme Court cases, have the slightest appreciation for how broadly the commerce clause is construed.

2 - Replace it with what?

3 - bwahahahahahahahahahaha. Neither party will be held to this. Ever.

4 - seems pointless and arbitrary. If Congress wants to exceed that number, they can decide to. By definition, must be full of loopholes for various emergencies, military conflicts, and unforeseen circumstances

5 - Wait, you're going to lower taxes AND balance the budget? Can you cure cancer while you're at it?

6 - Didn't Obama campaign on this? Wasn't this the panel the Republicans refused to authorize?

7 - 95% of the people in this country couldn't give you an ACCURATE explanation of what cap-and-trade is, or what it's likely effect is versus the alternatives. Why is this such an integral component? Most tea partiers seem to hate it because the talking heads at Fox "News" have told them its a tax.

8 - Okay. I'm down with that. Current administration seems to be pursuing it to some degree.

9 - How is this going to help us balance the budget? Technically it's an expiration of a tax cut, not a tax "hike". Plus it only effects people making over $200 or $250k per year. They're not exactly the middle class folks that are feeling the brunt of the economy. Why is this such an integral component?

10 - see number 3. If it's not earmarks, it will be something else.

[Duckus]

I have been to a few Tea Party rallies. Never seen anything too crazy - they reminded me of the IMF and Anti-War rallies from the early-mid 2000s in DC. Both groups have a similar feel when you walk around and listen to people (which I do often). They are made up of angry people who feel unrepresented in government and think they know everything but are usually pretty ignorant of the actual issues. The most operate in a world of talking points and yell when challenged.

Tea Party protesters would have a lot more credibility IMO on the issues of spending if they pushed for REAL cuts. They spend so much time on the small ****.

They should laid out a platform to cut military spending, social security and medicare by enormous amounts. That is where government spending is out of control IMO - so why not start there?

Also, they ****ing endorsed Michele Bachmann . . . Whyyyyyyy????

[Jumbo]

They are made up of angry people who feel unrepresented in government and think they know everything but are usually pretty ignorant of the actual issues. The most operate in a world of talking points and yell when challenged.

^^ 90% of the "politically active" population.

[Larry]

deleted post.

[Chicken Fried]

1 - ridiculous. First of all, just because a congressman "identifies" the constitutional authority, doesn't mean you will agree it's there. I suspect very few people who have a pocket copy of the constitution, but have read 0 Supreme Court cases, have the slightest appreciation for how broadly the commerce clause is construed.

If a Congressman is forced to identify the Constitutional backing for a bill, they won't be able to get away with so much. I think all of us conservatives have a great "appreciation" for how broadly the commerce cause is construed. It's used as an excuse for almost anything. You can even put abortion under it because it's technically commerce. That clause is the only real flaw in our Constitution.

2 - Replace it with what?

Something based on conservative principles that isn't unConstitutional. Nowhere does the Constitution allow the government to endorse a product and force everyone to buy it.

3 - bwahahahahahahahahahaha. Neither party will be held to this. Ever.

It doesn't mean you give up on it and passively accept excessive government spending

4 - seems pointless and arbitrary. If Congress wants to exceed that number, they can decide to. By definition, must be full of loopholes for various emergencies, military conflicts, and unforeseen circumstances

Or you just cut out the other useless crap so we have room for those emergencies.

5 - Wait, you're going to lower taxes AND balance the budget? Can you cure cancer while you're at it?

Lowering taxes doesn't directly balance the budget. Obviously, as we can see currently, high taxes don't either. You balance the budget by reducing government spending, not by taking more and more of the people's hard earned money.

6 - Didn't Obama campaign on this? Wasn't this the panel the Republicans refused to authorize?

Maybe? I'll have to look into it.

7 - 95% of the people in this country couldn't give you an ACCURATE explanation of what cap-and-trade is, or what it's likely effect is versus the alternatives. Why is this such an integral component? Most tea partiers seem to hate it because the talking heads at Fox "News" have told them its a tax.

No. We actually do get it. It's not hard to understand. Cap and trade is a government plan to reduce pollution by controlling how much companies can emit and using economic incentives to reduce it. It won't do anything. The highest polluters will still make the most profit, so they'll just buy everyone else's credits. More importantly, it's just one more step of government take over of the economy. We already had the bailout, then we had government-mandated healthcare, and now we're going to have the government telling us what we can and can't do with our companies. We will lose jobs, and the economy will be stunted.

8 - Okay. I'm down with that. Current administration seems to be pursuing it to some degree.

9 - How is this going to help us balance the budget? Technically it's an expiration of a tax cut, not a tax "hike". Plus it only effects people making over $200 or $250k per year. They're not exactly the middle class folks that are feeling the brunt of the economy. Why is this such an integral component?

If you hinder growth of the upper class, the poor will be thus be negatively affected. Just like the worker who told Ronald Reagan, "A poor man never gave mea job." If you tax the rich more and more, they have to make cuts in their companies, costing the middle class and poor jobs. By taxing the upper class less, the middle and lower classes benefit.

10 - see number 3. If it's not earmarks, it will be something else.

Once again, you don't just accept it. We've wasted so much money recently in these bills with pork spending. The problem is that the government has no accountability.

[commyderm2]

Non-biased doesn't exist. I would say having met and talked to a number of FOX producers at the National Press Club that the biggest difference is the way that FOX is intentionally and consciously biased.

It's one thing if a reporter slips or a mistake is made, or even pushes their personal agenda (all of which is bad) but when there is overt direction to leave certain info out and to shade a story specifically to make someone look good or bad by news directors and network heads that is a bigger problem.

In my experience, and from those I have talked that has never happened at NPR. There has never been orders on how to frame a story from on top. My understanding is that is not the way it goes at the other networks either... except occassionally things have gotten pulled or pressure applied due to the influence of sponsors (which is horrible in its own right)

Thank you for mentioning NPR.. the only true news source that is more concerned with enlightening its viewerbase than ratings for people who are just looking for reassurance in their beliefs which they are unbelievably insecure about..

If you ever want to know if somebody is insecure about their beliefs and truly unprincipled.. mention a flaw in their political party and their automatic response is "yeah well, the Democrats are....." or "Fox News may be this, but MSNBC is..." it's a common falicy of redirecting the debate..

[mistertim]

Something based on conservative principles that isn't unConstitutional. Nowhere does the Constitution allow the government to endorse a product and force everyone to buy it.

Sorry, but this stuck out to me. Who is trying to "force" anyone to buy something? Even the "public option" part of the recent healthcare bill was taken out, even though it was...get this...an "option". Who "forces" people into medicare or medicaid? This is just outright dishonesty.

[Larry]

Sorry, but this stuck out to me. Who is trying to "force" anyone to buy something? Even the "public option" part of the recent healthcare bill was taken out, even though it was...get this...an "option". Who "forces" people into medicare or medicaid? This is just outright dishonesty.

The Republican Talking Point claims that the health care bill "forces" people to buy health insurance.

It isn't true, at least not depending on your definition of "force".

What the law actually does is to charge a tax to people who (according to some formula) can afford to buy health insurance, but who chose not to. I think (but I'm not certain) that this tax then goes to pay the hospital bills of people who needed health care, but who didn't have insurance.

But it's certainly a fact that the tax is there to encourage people to buy health insurance.

(There's also, I think, a tax on employers who don't offer health insurance to their employees. Same thing. The purpose of the tax is to encourage people (in this case, employers) to buy insurance.)

Now, that the Right Wingers like to do is to observe that if you don't buy insurance, then you get taxed, and if you don't pay your taxes, then they'll hit you with penalties, and if you don't pay the taxes and the penalties then they'll sieze your assets, and it you don't have enough assets to sieze then they'll throw you in jail for not paying taxes, and to claim that "they'll throw you in jail for not buying health insurance".

(Which is, like most Political Talking Points, a complete lie. But it's one of those famous "well, it's a lie, but if you call me on it I can argue about it until you give up" kind of lies. The "well, it's true if you just eliminate a lot of things in the middle" kind of lies.)

[mistertim]

Larry, perhaps I was interpreting the post by Bliz as too broad, but it seemed like he was implying that any type of gov't healthcare was "forced" on people, ie medicare, etc. But your point is still salient; I agree: there is a huge jump from a (rather small) tax on people who choose not to buy health care to "they are forcing us to do something against our will and will throw us in jail if we don't comply" chain of thought.

[Chicken Fried]

What the law actually does is to charge a tax to people who (according to some formula) can afford to buy health insurance, but who chose not to. I think (but I'm not certain) that this tax then goes to pay the hospital bills of people who needed health care, but who didn't have insurance.

That's not Constitutional. The government cannot penalize me for not buying a product. You've got to be kidding me. Like I say, if the Founding Fathers saw how unbelievably huge our government has become and intrusive in the lives of its citizens, they'd roll over in their graves. The government has absolutely no right to tax me because I don't want to buy something.

Now, that the Right Wingers like to do is to observe that if you don't buy insurance, then you get taxed, and if you don't pay your taxes, then they'll hit you with penalties, and if you don't pay the taxes and the penalties then they'll sieze your assets, and it you don't have enough assets to sieze then they'll throw you in jail for not paying taxes, and to claim that "they'll throw you in jail for not buying health insurance".

Are you denying that it's possible? And no, you're wrong that that's what right-winger like to do. I haven't even heard that argument before. We focus on the Constitutionality of it.

(Which is, like most Political Talking Points, a complete lie. But it's one of those famous "well, it's a lie, but if you call me on it I can argue about it until you give up" kind of lies. The "well, it's true if you just eliminate a lot of things in the middle" kind of lies.)

You're making crap up. Conservatives don't focus on that. Please stop lying.

[Chicken Fried]

Larry, perhaps I was interpreting the post by Bliz as too broad, but it seemed like he was implying that any type of gov't healthcare was "forced" on people, ie medicare, etc. But your point is still salient; I agree: there is a huge jump from a (rather small) tax on people who choose not to buy health care to "they are forcing us to do something against our will and will throw us in jail if we don't comply" chain of thought.

Once again, that's not the chain of thought. The chain of thought is that the government has no right to penalize me for not buying something. It's just wrong.

[mistertim]

Once again, that's not the chain of thought. The chain of thought is that the government has no right to penalize me for not buying something. It's just wrong.

You just went from "unconstitutional" to "it's just wrong". That is a bit specious.

[Chicken Fried]

You just went from "unconstitutional" to "it's just wrong". That is a bit specious.

It's both unconstitutional and just wrong. In my view, most things our government does that are unconstitutional are actually "just wrong." Our Constitutional is nearly as perfect as man can make (except for the vague commerce clause), so anything that goes against it is often, in my opinion, naturally not right.

[Henry]

That's not Constitutional. The government cannot penalize me for not buying a product. You've got to be kidding me. Like I say, if the Founding Fathers saw how unbelievably huge our government has become and intrusive in the lives of its citizens, they'd roll over in their graves. The government has absolutely no right to tax me because I don't want to buy something.

I keep hearing this. Why isn't it constitutional for Congress to lay taxes?

[Larry]

That's not Constitutional. The government cannot penalize me for not buying a product. You've got to be kidding me. Like I say, if the Founding Fathers saw how unbelievably huge our government has become and intrusive in the lives of its citizens, they'd roll over in their graves. The government has absolutely no right to tax me because I don't want to buy something.

My government taxes me more because I'm not married.

They tax me more because I don't have kids.

The tax code has tax deductions for straight, married, couples, that gay, married, couples can't use.

My parents pay higher taxes because their house is paid for.

Is the government Unconstitutionally forcing people to be straight, get married, buy a house (and not only to buy a house, but they must do so on credit), and have kids?

Are you denying that it's possible? And no, you're wrong that that's what right-winger like to do. I haven't even heard that argument before. We focus on the Constitutionality of it.

You're making crap up. Conservatives don't focus on that. Please stop lying.

Well, gee, the search function worked. Once. Here's what I get from this very forum on the words insurance and jail.

Why do you think the IRS is involved and will be the main agency tracking these things? The penalty for not buying insurance will be converted to a tax owed to the IRS and we all know if you do not pay your taxes......well for most of us we go to jail. The incarceration language is in the bill.

Really? We are definitely in new territory here. The Federal govt '''FORCING" it's citizens to purchase something against their will and ultimately jail if they do not comply?? IMO it's not as definitive as that.

(Well, those were the relevant ones. There were a bunch of others that weren't on this topic, or were people responding to those two posts.)

Unfortunately, attempting to search on any other combination of words gets me a white screen.

Google, however, finds some other hits. Like this entire thread, titled

Politico: 1 year or $25,000 penalty for not buying insurance?

And this one:

Comply With Pelosi-Care Or Go To Jail

Anyone that thinks this bill is a good thing then you will soon be sadly disappointed.

I once thought we needed health care reform and I thought they where talking about charging $10.00 for a aspirin or $2000 for a x-ray.

Not the taking away of ones freedoms and having the ability to throw you in jail if you don't carry insurance!!!!

Guess what the government is already banking on a portion of the reform being paid by fines from ones that somehow either won't pay or get in a bad situation and can't!!!

Get ready middle class America you are about to get the screwing of a lifetime!!

http://nyletterpress.wordpress.com/2009/11/08/healthcare-takeover-bill-a-thief-in-the-night/

(Whew! For a second there I thought that every hit I got was going to be from the same poster.)

I'm stopping, now, because I'm on Google's page 10, and that's only for the words insurance and jail.

But somehow I think I've proven my point that no, I'm not just making this up.

Awaiting your apology.

[luckydevil]

(2) Defund, repeal, and replace government-run health care

So does that include medicare? Medicare is government run health care.

[Larry]

So does that include medicare? Medicare is government run health care.

Don't forget soldiers and veterans.

[luckydevil]

Don't forget soldiers and veterans.

Yup

[Larry]

I keep hearing this. Why isn't it constitutional for Congress to lay taxes?

Well, actually, it's Constitutional for Congress to lay taxes for the purposes of carrying out the enumerated powers.

They can collect taxes to provide for the common defense.

But not for establishing a state religion.

(Then again, I suspect that you knew that.)

[AsburySkinsFan]

But somehow I think I've proven my point that no, I'm not just making this up.

Or one could just turn on Faux News.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/15/oreilly-vs-coburn-the-vid_n_539478.html

BTW, Colburn should have has his staffers provide him with a list to names, dates and times to hammer O'Really with in that interview; sloppy work on his part.

Awaiting your apology.

Don't hold your breath, I'd hate to see you pass out at the computer.