Go Obama!

[diamond]

He hates flies too

PETA condemns Obama for murdering innocent fly


By Jimmy Orr | 06.18.09
Print this Letter to the Editor Republish Email and shareGet e-mail alerts RSS
A couple days ago we mentioned that we hadn’t heard from PETA yet about President Obama’s deadly attack on an innocent housefly who set up residence in the White House.

That doesn’t mean they didn’t care. They were just slow on the draw. But don’t take that as a lack of interest. Oh, they’re interested…

Condemnation

Obama’s ninja-like moves, which resulted in the murder of said fly on Tuesday, has resulted in harsh condemnation of the president by the animal rights group.

Well, maybe not that harsh. They view Obama’s actions as perhaps more of a teachable moment.

“He isn’t the Buddha, he’s a human being, and human beings have a long way to go before they think before they act,” writes Alisa Mullins on the PETA blog.

Gift

To that end, they’re sending him a PETA-branded “Katcha Bug Humane Bug Catcher”. It allows you to place “the device over the bug and slowly slide its plastic trapdoor shut. The bug will step onto the trapdoor as it closes, and you can carry Katcha Bug outside, where all you need to do is slide the trap door open, allowing the bug to walk away.”

Well, that’s nice. But the use of this instrument would have resulted in a far less dramatic scene. Obama walked away from the interview looking like Chuck Norris. Who knows how high Obama’s approval rating will soar as a result of the tough-on-defense action.

Compassion

Doesn’t make any difference to PETA. They believe the president needs to show compassion regardless of high polling numbers.

“We support compassion even for the most curious, smallest and least sympathetic animals,” PETA spokesman Bruce Friedrich said. “We believe that people, where they can be compassionate, should be, for all animals.”

Until he shows more compassion, will members of PETA show up in giant fly costumes protesting the president? We’re guessing probably not.

————

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Yeah, that was already here Samson and thus the comment. Is your luscious flowing hair in your eyes?

 

[BVS]

He's inconsistent. He joked at the dinner that an overwhelming percentage of the media is in love with him and voted for him, but now he's insisting he's being treated unfairly, and to make this claim he points to one of the only outlets that dares to challenge him and question some of his policies. With the exception of Fox, almost no outlets are the least bit "criticial" of this administration.

Put down the kool aid, take off the Rush tinted glasses and slowly breathe.

You've got to be kidding, right?

How is he "insisting he's being treated unfairly"?

You're just being silly.

 

[2861U2]

How is he "insisting he's being treated unfairly"?

He said "It's very hard for me to swallow that one," in reference to the idea that the media is not being tough on him. 95% of the media is in love with him, but he still always brings up Fox News as a defense to say "See! There's one group of people who doesn't lap up everything we do!" He needs to let it go. He knows the media is treating him well overall, but he has to appease his base and make Fox a villain and say false things about them.

If Fox News didn't exist, do you honestly think he would have been able to dispute an allegation of the media being overly favorable to him, like he did here? If so, you're the silly one.

 

[BVS]

Well that surely isn't "insisting he's being treated unfairly" now is it?

Could you possibly overreact some more?

Honestly, it sounds very tongue n cheek to me, the whole "hard for me swallow" line.

You don't think Bush appealed to his base by making jabs at the media and giving favor to Fox?

 

[bigjohn2441]

this just in from fox news:

BREAKING NEWS

North Korea is going to blow up the US ANYTIME now!!!!!!!!





the more i look at their website, the more the term "fear-mongering" comes to mind.

 

[2861U2]

Well that surely isn't "insisting he's being treated unfairly" now is it?

Could you possibly overreact some more?

Honestly, it sounds very tongue n cheek to me, the whole "hard for me swallow" line.

You don't think Bush appealed to his base by making jabs at the media and giving favor to Fox?

I'm not over-reacting. I find this funny. I just don't get how he can say with a straight face "The media is too being critical of me! Just look at Fox News, and.... and.... well look at Fox News!" I think it really gets to Obama that somewhere in this country a very popular outlet exists that actually, on occasion, challenges him and his administration.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

I think it really gets to Obama that somewhere in this country a very popular outlet exists that actually, on occasion, challenges him and his administration.

I don't think it gets to him at all. Not much seems to get to him. I'm sure his wife probably brings him down to earth/size more than Fox News ever could.

 

[diamond]

Yeah, that was already here Samson and thus the comment. Is your luscious flowing hair in your eyes?

That damn Delilah

 

[BVS]

I'm not over-reacting. I find this funny. I just don't get how he can say with a straight face "The media is too being critical of me! Just look at Fox News, and.... and.... well look at Fox News!" I think it really gets to Obama that somewhere in this country a very popular outlet exists that actually, on occasion, challenges him and his administration.

What's funny, is THAT'S NOT WHAT HE'S SAYING!!!

I don't get how you can post that with a straight face...

Really "get to Obama"? What a Rush thing to say, he's got you brainwashed...

 

[Irvine511]

He said "It's very hard for me to swallow that one," in reference to the idea that the media is not being tough on him. 95% of the media is in love with him, but he still always brings up Fox News as a defense

but i thought Fox News trounces all the other stations?

i think you're taking a semi-offhand remark by the president and blowing it up into elephantine proportions because it feeds into the long-standing anti-media woe-is-us-they're-all-against-us line that the Republicans have been serving up since the 1960s.

it's called "working the refs," and the Republicans fully admit to doing this.

you can complain about MSNBC all you want, but it's absurd of you to do that and then complain when someone complains about Fox.

besides, Fox is way, way more conservative than MSNBC is liberal.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

i think you're taking a semi-offhand remark by the president and blowing it up into elephantine proportions because it feeds into the long-standing anti-media woe-is-us-they're-all-against-us line that the Republicans have been serving up since the 1960s.

And what are the odds that Fox News will do this? Maybe Governor Palin will weigh in too.

 

[BVS]

Does anyone think 2861 might be Palin and the college male thing is just a front?

 

[2861U2]

besides, Fox is way, way more conservative than MSNBC is liberal.

Good one.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

I don't watch Fox or MSNBC because they both are extreme and full of their various obnoxious anchors and commentators. But trying to determine if Fox is more conservative than MSNBC is liberal seems impossible in my opinion. It's like trying to determine who has the best butt in baseball. I have my own opinion, but it's admittedly biased and I haven't seen every butt in baseball either.

It's subjective and influenced by one's own leanings and biases. Maybe a statistical analysis could be created somehow by someone. Of Fox/MSNBC-not baseball butts.

 

[Bluer White]

^ Let's just call it a draw between those two networks.

 

[Irvine511]

i think the point fundamentally stands.

"conservative" media is just that -- conservative. as it can be and as it should be if it wants to be.

"liberal" media is slim pickin's, perhaps that's due to market forces. i don't know. but to call, firstly, NPR or PBS (or even the Big 3 networks) "liberal" is plainly wrong, and to call MSNBC "liberal" is more accurate, but on a scale of 1-10, it's probably a 4 or a 5, whereas Fox is about a 7 or an 8 on the conservative scale.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

Why do some people still think Fox is actually a news service?

 

[2861U2]

Why do some people insist it isn't but have no problem with the way MSNBC runs its operation?

 

[2861U2]

MSNBC "liberal" is more accurate, but on a scale of 1-10, it's probably a 4 or a 5, whereas Fox is about a 7 or an 8 on the conservative scale.

What do you base this on?

There's no way the combined biases of Ed Shultz, Olbermann, Matthews, Maddow are less apparent than that of Beck, Hannity, O'Reilly, Van Susteren...

Again, there are far more liberals on Fox then conservatives on MSNBC. This cannot be disputed.

 

[deep]

She fell and broke her arm

Sure, every victim says, I fell, bumped into a door. etc.

Sotomayor fell? too



is someone under too much pressure and acting out ?

 

[HyperU2]

More likely that Michelle had to regulate.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

Why do some people insist it isn't but have no problem with the way MSNBC runs its operation?

We don’t have MSNBC in Australia, just Fox and CNN (+ Sky & BBC) - so I have no idea. I have seen clips of Olbermann and yeah, he seems like a complete ass, but that’s all I know. I do know Fox is laughable though. It’s not a news channel. Yes, CNN is a shadow of it’s former self. BBC is still excellent. Sky is pretty good. Fox, it’s just not in the same category. At all.

You can’t compare, say, the BBC with Fox at all. They’re not doing the same thing, and Fox would be the first to admit that. It’s not actually a news channel! 24/7 opinion shows covering only 2 or 3 topics a day on every show, all day, every day, with the same 5 or 6 guests getting recycled through every show (seriously, there must be more potential 'outraged conservative' guests out there - why the same 5 or 6 ALL THE TIME?) all just trying to jam something, even if it doesn't fit at all, through that really tired left v right culture war, mixed with a bit of paranoia, hatred and fear... and that's it. I flick to the BBC or Sky and I'm getting on the ground, in depth reports from Iran. I flick to Fox and I get Sean Hannity screaming about something Obama hasn't said and about how Reagan would have said it for sure. Stupid. Not a news channel.

 

[U2DMfan]

What do you base this on?

There's no way the combined biases of Ed Shultz, Olbermann, Matthews, Maddow are less apparent than that of Beck, Hannity, O'Reilly, Van Susteren...

Again, there are far more liberals on Fox then conservatives on MSNBC. This cannot be disputed.

I would dispute that easily. "far more", that's inaccurate at best.

I think they are both biased, both void of credible journalists but both decidedly more entertaining than CNN, which is a true shit fest.

MSNBC has plenty of conservative analysts, and they have Joe Scarborough, which at least gives them 1 more 'opposite team' host than Fox has. If that's what you're interested in. I have no use for these myths that Bill-O or Olbermann like to throw out there. I'll give you my straight opinion on the subject. The more time progresses, the more they mirror each other.

You realize your disdain for MSNBC right now?
How could people not see the bias, right?
Well that's been Fox News for 13 years.
It mostly started on MSNBC in 2008 when they had to defeat Hillary.

"Combined biases"
If Hannity cancels out Maddow
And Olbie cancels out Bill-O
and Ed Schultz cancels out Beck
and Matthews cancels out Greta (who used to be quite fair)

then who cancels out the Conservative Report w/ Brett Baer?
With at times, no less than 4 conservatives at the table. 5 days a week.
Every week.

who cancels out Neil "watch out for socialism" Cavuto?

who cancels out the 'hilarious' hillbillies on Fox and Friends?
Joe Scarborough?
Joe isn't a 'Bushie' does that make him a liberal too?

MSNBC has taken a decided turn, for business purposes, to counter program Fox. (To answer your other question) I don't have a big issue with it until they start fraudulently claiming they are "fair and balanced".

This has always been my gripe with Fox. They want to be conservative?
Fine and dandy but stop fucking lying to my face, that's all I ask.

 

[Bluer White]

Sotomayor fell? too

... tripped over her words perhaps ?

 

[Irvine511]

What do you base this on?

There's no way the combined biases of Ed Shultz, Olbermann, Matthews, Maddow are less apparent than that of Beck, Hannity, O'Reilly, Van Susteren...

yes, i would say it is.

and you're misleading yourself if you think it's just about the infotainment prime time lineup. look at Fox's actual news coverage of events -- in addition to Fox and Friends, which is hilarious in it's know-nothing conservativism -- and that's where you see the clear bias come through. the bias lies not in whatever star each network has on at 8pm. rather, it's in the way in which issues are framed by the producers and read by the anchors that exhibits the bias.

take, for example, the NYT and the WSJ. you can clearly argue that the editorial page of the NYT is much more liberal than the conservative WSJ. however, when it comes to actual coverage of news, both papers do a very good job with general objectivity. neither are perfect, but both are outstanding news sources.

Again, there are far more liberals on Fox then conservatives on MSNBC. This cannot be disputed.

this is precisely the issue. to you, and to the Fox News mindset, you're either a liberal or a conservative and you're supposed to fight.

i understand that conservatives seem to need this clear bifurcation of complex issues, but i don't think that's particularly healthy.

 

[2861U2]

MSNBC has plenty of conservative analysts, and they have Joe Scarborough, which at least gives them 1 more 'opposite team' host than Fox has. If that's what you're interested in.

Aside from him and Pat Buchanan, I can't think of other conservative-leaning people on that network. Fox has frequent guests Alan Colmes, Juan Williams, Bob Beckel, Ellis Henican, Mort Kondrake, Geraldo Rivera and hosts Shepard Smith and Greta all lean left.

"Combined biases"
If Hannity cancels out Maddow
And Olbie cancels out Bill-O
and Ed Schultz cancels out Beck
and Matthews cancels out Greta (who used to be quite fair)

You can't make this comparison, though. O'Reilly has criticized both sides and been fair to Obama on mulitple instances. Olbermann doesn't do that. Beck has been very critical of Republicans recently. Maddow, Olbermann and Schultz are hardcore Democrats. They just are. I have never seen them attack a liberal or defend a conservative. Matthews is slightly more fair, but not much.

then who cancels out the Conservative Report w/ Brett Baer?
With at times, no less than 4 conservatives at the table. 5 days a week.
Every week.

That's not true. Juan Williams, Mara Liasson and Mort Kondrake are regular panelists on that show.

who cancels out Neil "watch out for socialism" Cavuto?

Cavuto has attacked the Bush administration constantly when it comes to spending.

This has always been my gripe with Fox. They want to be conservative?
Fine and dandy but stop fucking lying to my face, that's all I ask.

Who cares what the slogan is? MSNBC is "the place for politics," but I could certainly argue that they specialize in presenting primarily liberal politics. CNN is "the best political team on television," and that's debatable also...

 

[BVS]

Who cares? You overreacted to an off the cuff remark that you misinterpreted. You've become obsessed with this "state ran" media they are all out to get me bullshit.

What it comes down to is how they report the news. I couldn't care less how many liberal or conservative commentators they have on the network.

 

[2861U2]

Who cares? You overreacted to an off the cuff remark that you misinterpreted. You've become obsessed with this "state ran" media they are all out to get me bullshit.

How exactly did I misinterpret it?

What it comes down to is how they report the news. I couldn't care less how many liberal or conservative commentators they have on the network.

It matters when those commentators affect the presenting of the news and the "sides" that are taken.

 

[BVS]

How exactly did I misinterpret it?

Go back and read your posts, they're hilarious. He never once even came close to saying "the media is too hard on me" or "insisting he's treated unfairly".

It matters when those commentators affect the presenting of the news and the "sides" that are taken.

Do you think O'Reilly or Obermann have any say in the actual news portion? Seriously?