Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Reporters, even those on the White House beat for two decades, said it was the most restrictive set of meetings they had ever seen in Washington. They complained to both the administration and White House Correspondents' Association, which will discuss the matter Thursday with White House press secretary Robert Gibbs.

The restrictions have become a common practice for the Obama White House. When Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu came to the White House a couple of weeks ago, reporters were kept away. Soon after that, Obama signed an executive order on abortion, again without any coverage.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 67_pf.html

CitadelGrad wrote:Reporters, even those on the White House beat for two decades, said it was the most restrictive set of meetings they had ever seen in Washington. They complained to both the administration and White House Correspondents' Association, which will discuss the matter Thursday with White House press secretary Robert Gibbs.

The restrictions have become a common practice for the Obama White House. When Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu came to the White House a couple of weeks ago, reporters were kept away. Soon after that, Obama signed an executive order on abortion, again without any coverage.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 67_pf.html

Looks like free speech zones are here to stay.

houndawg wrote:

CitadelGrad wrote:Reporters, even those on the White House beat for two decades, said it was the most restrictive set of meetings they had ever seen in Washington. They complained to both the administration and White House Correspondents' Association, which will discuss the matter Thursday with White House press secretary Robert Gibbs.

The restrictions have become a common practice for the Obama White House. When Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu came to the White House a couple of weeks ago, reporters were kept away. Soon after that, Obama signed an executive order on abortion, again without any coverage.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 67_pf.html

Looks like free speech zones are here to stay.

"Free speech zones" are reserved for "activists" and "protesters", not media, have been around since the 60's under Johnson, and frankly you're a flat fucking moron for suggesting Obama's press censorship falls in that category.

The Obama Administration's involvement in press censorship, from the infamous WH ban of Fox in October 2009, to the most recent attempt to ban World Net Daily from the White House Press Corps luncheon (ahem, from which Judicial Watch has initiated a lawsuit on their behalf), it's clear there are some genuine, unscholarly fucknuts running around the West Wing. Unfortunately, when Obama put his stamp on the scheme to keep the press off AF1 enroute to the Nuclear Accord Treaty signing (requiring them to book and fly commercial for the first time EVER in the history of a WH Treaty signing trip abroad), he has jacketed himself as a unadulterated press censor.

It's pathetic to watch lefties like yourself, Ideologdawg, attempt to cover up your Chosen One's misdeeds. The harder you try, the more pathetic the results.

You'll be better off once you confess that ya' done fucked up by electing a died-in-the-wool socialist, rather than the pie-in-the-sky idealist you thought you had found.

And as you know, admitting your error is the necessary first step to re-establishing your goals and path. Try it. You really will feel better.

travelinman67 wrote:

houndawg wrote:
Looks like free speech zones are here to stay.

"Free speech zones" are reserved for "activists" and "protesters", not media, have been around since the 60's under Johnson, and frankly you're a flat **** moron for suggesting Obama's press censorship falls in that category.

So that makes it ok? The 1st Amendment is for all the people--press, "activists," and "protestors."

As to Obama being a "socialist." He is, only in the sense that he's a "corporate socialist." He's a big-business, big-government kind of guy--much like the last president.

ASUMountaineer wrote:

travelinman67 wrote:
"Free speech zones" are reserved for "activists" and "protesters", not media, have been around since the 60's under Johnson, and frankly you're a flat **** moron for suggesting Obama's press censorship falls in that category.

So that makes it ok? The 1st Amendment is for all the people--press, "activists," and "protestors."

As to Obama being a "socialist." He is, only in the sense that he's a "corporate socialist." He's a big-business, big-government kind of guy--much like the last president.

Bush was a socialist, Wall Street is socialistic, hell we're all socialists.

kalm wrote:

ASUMountaineer wrote:
So that makes it ok? The 1st Amendment is for all the people--press, "activists," and "protestors."

As to Obama being a "socialist." He is, only in the sense that he's a "corporate socialist." He's a big-business, big-government kind of guy--much like the last president.

Bush was a socialist, Wall Street is socialistic, hell we're all socialists.

Gotcha, Maojeff!

travelinman67 wrote:

houndawg wrote:
Looks like free speech zones are here to stay.

"Free speech zones" are reserved for "activists" and "protesters", not media, have been around since the 60's under Johnson, and frankly you're a flat **** moron for suggesting Obama's press censorship falls in that category.

The Obama Administration's involvement in press censorship, from the infamous WH ban of Fox in October 2009, to the most recent attempt to ban World Net Daily from the White House Press Corps luncheon (ahem, from which Judicial Watch has initiated a lawsuit on their behalf), it's clear there are some genuine, unscholarly **** running around the West Wing. Unfortunately, when Obama put his stamp on the scheme to keep the press off AF1 enroute to the Nuclear Accord Treaty signing (requiring them to book and fly commercial for the first time EVER in the history of a WH Treaty signing trip abroad), he has jacketed himself as a unadulterated press censor.

It's pathetic to watch lefties like yourself, Ideologdawg, attempt to cover up your Chosen One's misdeeds. The harder you try, the more pathetic the results.

You'll be better off once you confess that ya' done **** up by electing a died-in-the-wool socialist, rather than the pie-in-the-sky idealist you thought you had found.

And as you know, admitting your error is the necessary first step to re-establishing your goals and path. Try it. You really will feel better.

Your feeble attempt to link Faux News with the press fools nobody and means only that there are now fewer unscholarly ****'s running loose in the WH. We expect this sort of subterfuge from a counter-revolutionary running-dog lackey of the parasitic bourgeoise capitalist such as yourself.

houndawg wrote:

travelinman67 wrote:
"Free speech zones" are reserved for "activists" and "protesters", not media, have been around since the 60's under Johnson, and frankly you're a flat **** moron for suggesting Obama's press censorship falls in that category.

The Obama Administration's involvement in press censorship, from the infamous WH ban of Fox in October 2009, to the most recent attempt to ban World Net Daily from the White House Press Corps luncheon (ahem, from which Judicial Watch has initiated a lawsuit on their behalf), it's clear there are some genuine, unscholarly **** running around the West Wing. Unfortunately, when Obama put his stamp on the scheme to keep the press off AF1 enroute to the Nuclear Accord Treaty signing (requiring them to book and fly commercial for the first time EVER in the history of a WH Treaty signing trip abroad), he has jacketed himself as a unadulterated press censor.

It's pathetic to watch lefties like yourself, Ideologdawg, attempt to cover up your Chosen One's misdeeds. The harder you try, the more pathetic the results.

You'll be better off once you confess that ya' done **** up by electing a died-in-the-wool socialist, rather than the pie-in-the-sky idealist you thought you had found.

And as you know, admitting your error is the necessary first step to re-establishing your goals and path. Try it. You really will feel better.

Your feeble attempt to link Faux News with the press fools nobody and means only that there are now fewer unscholarly ****'s running loose in the WH. We expect this sort of subterfuge from a counter-revolutionary running-dog lackey of the parasitic bourgeoise capitalist such as yourself.

If the WH had also snubbed MSNBC when it snubbed FOX, then at least the WH would be able to truthfully make the argument that they were simply denying access to sensationalism. Since the WH has not only gone after FOX exclusively but ALSO has provided some special access to certain MSNBC talkers, the action is purely political. FOX news didn't get the negative attention of the White House because they are "not news", they got the attention because they are critical of Obama. Saying otherwise is intellectually dishonest (OR it just means that you haven't watched Herr Olbermann lately.).

CID1990 wrote:

houndawg wrote:
Your feeble attempt to link Faux News with the press fools nobody and means only that there are now fewer unscholarly ****'s running loose in the WH. We expect this sort of subterfuge from a counter-revolutionary running-dog lackey of the parasitic bourgeoise capitalist such as yourself.

If the WH had also snubbed MSNBC when it snubbed FOX, then at least the WH would be able to truthfully make the argument that they were simply denying access to sensationalism. Since the WH has not only gone after FOX exclusively but ALSO has provided some special access to certain MSNBC talkers, the action is purely political. FOX news didn't get the negative attention of the White House because they are "not news", they got the attention because they are critical of Obama. Saying otherwise is intellectually dishonest (OR it just means that you haven't watched Herr Olbermann lately.).

I didn't say anything about why Faux News got negative attention from the WH.

Are you suggesting that politics were involved? I'm shocked.......shocked, I tell you........

He's been on Fox News several times as President. He was last on about a month ago. Y'all want and expect him to be on once a month or so? Y'all want him to be a nightly guest on Glenn Beck?

[youtube][/youtube]

It's pretty funny that y'all deny watching and listening to Fox News types and then defend them to the end. I think native is the only one that openly admits watching Glenn Beck (every night with a pen and notepad ready ).

houndawg wrote:

travelinman67 wrote:
"Free speech zones" are reserved for "activists" and "protesters", not media, have been around since the 60's under Johnson, and frankly you're a flat **** moron for suggesting Obama's press censorship falls in that category.

The Obama Administration's involvement in press censorship, from the infamous WH ban of Fox in October 2009, to the most recent attempt to ban World Net Daily from the White House Press Corps luncheon (ahem, from which Judicial Watch has initiated a lawsuit on their behalf), it's clear there are some genuine, unscholarly **** running around the West Wing. Unfortunately, when Obama put his stamp on the scheme to keep the press off AF1 enroute to the Nuclear Accord Treaty signing (requiring them to book and fly commercial for the first time EVER in the history of a WH Treaty signing trip abroad), he has jacketed himself as a unadulterated press censor.

It's pathetic to watch lefties like yourself, Ideologdawg, attempt to cover up your Chosen One's misdeeds. The harder you try, the more pathetic the results.

You'll be better off once you confess that ya' done **** up by electing a died-in-the-wool socialist, rather than the pie-in-the-sky idealist you thought you had found.

And as you know, admitting your error is the necessary first step to re-establishing your goals and path. Try it. You really will feel better.

Your feeble attempt to link Faux News with the press fools nobody and means only that there are now fewer unscholarly ****'s running loose in the WH. We expect this sort of subterfuge from a counter-revolutionary running-dog lackey of the parasitic bourgeoise capitalist such as yourself.

Again, you haven't done your homework and are just spewing hyperbole.

In the Fox news incident, the WH's actions were so inappropriate, the remaining press corp, NBC, CBS, CNN, ABC, AP, Reuters, etc...rejected the WH action and announced a boycott of press coverage unless was Fox was included.

The WH reversed it's decision.

30 minutes in the corner, Duncedawg...