Misleading Fox Nation Headline Implies That Climate Change Bill Is Treason

They did the same song and dance concerning Clinton's fiscal policies. The result was a budget surplus. Republicans since have squandered that surplus.

Theory is one thing. In the real world, Republican fiscal performance is lousy.

Repeat the Fox National Mantras after me:

Fair and balanced, fair and balanced, fair and balanced...

The truth is a lie, the truth is a lie, the truth is a lie...

Black is white, black is white, black is white...

War is peace, war is peace, war is peace...

Good is bad, good is bad, good is bad...

It seems to work on those poor tortured souls who can't get a grip on reality, even if they try (not that they have the faintest interest in that sort of thing).

Gadzooks!

May I ask the simple question of why every important bill brought up during the Obama term will have a catasrophic event if not approved NOW. Can you please answer that for me.

Gotta get it done now because the approval rating is up, but dropping.

Its the "Spend now pay later plan". Once its done, no changing it until the next president.

We are all screwed for 4 years!

Oh God, 3 more years of this. Can we dig ourselves out?

I'm calling shenanighans that one Greg.

It was Reagan and Bush Junior that epitomized spend now, pay later.

In fact, Clinton was on the way to paying off Reagan's debt when GWB took office.

http://uspolitics.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

I agree that Obama is not heading in the right direction in terms of spending, but he was only been in office a few months and had some extraordinary circumstances to deal with. I will refrain from judgement until he has had a couple of years under his belt...

I agree that Obama is not heading in the right direction in terms of spending, but he was only been in office a few months and had some extraordinary circumstances to deal with

Wouldn't you agree then, If the problem was that bad, Study and prudence would need to be the norm? He does have 4 years you know!

Rushing into problems, always causes a problem. Its a popularity thing with Obama. Get Bills in, worry about consequences later.

We are all screwed for 4 years!

Oh God, 3 more years of this. Can we dig ourselves out?

First rule of holes:when you find yourself in one, stop digging. I'm hoping the Congressional election next year will stop or least slow some this nonsense

I hope so. Poll driven Dems, should make them worry. The big Dems are in trouble . Shumer is one of the big wigs I wish would go along with Pelosi and Ried.

The big change is about to happen in 2010 and 2012.

actually, according to Rasmussen, they are starting to listen. Obama's strongly disapprove ratings just beat his strongly approve ratings... The "end" is near. *doing a celebration dance..*

As I have attempted to post on Faux Notion, "1,000 likely voters" is not really a number in a nation of 300 million. Polls can be and are skewed to fit whoever is doing the reporting.

"1,000 likely voters" is not really a number in a nation of 300 million. Polls can be and are skewed to fit whoever is doing the reporting.

Polls are done with similar sized samples all the time, many with fewer. It's not the size of the sample that matters nearly as much as the accuracy, that is, how well the sample is representative of the population as a whole.

Buckeye Voter to only blame Bush for our current financial woes is to ignore Clinton's removal of fiscal firewalls like Glass-Steagall and the fact Democrats have had control of both houses of Congress for 2&1/2 years.Our current disasterous policies will come home to roost in 2010 and in particular 2012.If energy prices have exploded and the economy hasn't recovered expect President Obama to join the last ultra liberal (Clinton was a centrist after his first few months of disasterous defeats) Jimmy Carter as a one term wonder.I wonder if he has any sweaters (Carter wore his in the 62 degree White House for "fireside chats".)?

It's also ironic to see the "dissent is patriotic" mantra disappear like the dodo.

Throwing around words like "treason" has never been.

You mean except when liberals approve. (See commentary re: Dick Cheney)

It isn't fox news.

I may watch Foxnews but at least I know how to spell opium. And no, I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

Personally, I find that thought really scary. There are millions of Americans who immigrated here legally for the love of this country, worked hard, studied harder and EARNED their right to be American instead of just winning the genetic lottery like 99% of "Americans." And you think that because of where they were born, they should be 2nd class citizens? Would you then push them out of education? Out of politics?

Lets flip that on its head: How about every American who is born in the US but lived abroad should not be allowed to run for public office or in media? After all, perhaps during their time abroad they became "anti-American" and "unduly influenced" by the local culture? That sounds pretty ignorant right?

If you don't like Murdoch, great! More power to you. But to want to limit what Americans can and can not do based only on something they had no control over (anymore than picking their own gender or skin color) is just wrong.

If my thoughts are so scary then why did the founding fathers require that a president must be a natural born citizen? Is it possible they foresaw a potential conflict of interest? I'd rather protect the country than take a chance and make immigrants "feel good." It's about time America put Americans first. I like immigrants, but foreigners are not guarantueed a right to live, work, own businesses here or become citizens. They are entering out country. Our interest must come first. Isn't that what Bush did with the Muslims and terrorists? Why was Bush's concerns valid and not mine in this instance? Is it because he is a wealthy white non-Muslim?

Murdoch has a monopoly on the media or at a minimum, too large of a hand on too many information sources. America used to have anti-trust laws to protect the public and consumers. The fact that he is not from the United States combined with what his media outlets produce makes me question if he shares governing principles that the founders did. Who goes to court to fight for the right to provide faulty information, excuse me, "opinion" to the public?

Contrary to popular opinion, I'm not into the whole left vs. right thing. I am concerned about the misinformation and inflamatory headlines that are blared by NewsCorp companies. Other outlets are guilty as well, but right now I'm focusing on Murdoch and Fox.

How many loyal Fox Noise viewers know the original reason Bush wanted to declare war in Iraq? How many of these viewers thought that Obama is a foreign born Muslim? These same people are likely to still belive that Saddam and Obama teamed up for 9-11. Fox doesn't seem to care what it puts out, as long as it furthers the neocon and/or multi-national corporation agenda.

Murdoch has moved reporting in this country from the 5 w's to O'Reilly style belligerence and Nazi propaganda techniques. I'd be just as concerned if he were born here, but his background makes me less likely to believe that he has our best interests.

Murdoch WAS Australian and Fox News and the New York Post are SO pro-Australian, it makes your head spin.

That right there shoots down your argument on foreign influence.

Secondly, once you BECOME an American (which he DID) you are entitled to the same rights as everyone else. AGAIN: I don't care if you agree, disagree with him. The fact is HE IS AMERICAN. He deserves the same rights as you.

It is just as wrong to say "Foreign born=bad" as to say "Black=bad.

Xenophobia... International racism.

Because its like putting up a building, you make sure the foundation deep and strong enough to hold it up, the harm we are doing to the environment is weaking the ability to support the planet. Your in effect turning the planet into "the leaning tower of Pisa" and how many business do you see at the top of that building?

the earth has been doing just fine for how many billions (as some think) of years?

Your in effect turning the planet into "the leaning tower of Pisa" and how many business do you see at the top of that building?

ZERO. Yes, by the time we, in America, are all finished "cleaning up the environment" for everybody else there won't be any American business left because they will have been taxed, fined, and levied out of the country or maybe out of existence!

No doubt about those 1300 page bills, but this is hardly the first time this has happened. Remember last fall with the Bail out. That was immoral and completely contrary to capatalism. Obama and McCain's votes of yes caused me to go 3rd party in the general election. I called my Senators and congressman from overseas. Guess what. Despite everyone's calling and writing, they passed it. That was economic treason on the part of those who voted for it. The CEOs who caused this are cashing out like Madoff without the jail time. Where was Fox with the headlines of Treason then?

We need to be able to rely on the press for "just the facts" and not the propaganda games. How are the citizens supposed to make informed decisions?

Good point Eric!! Since the "Obama Bunch" has taken office just about every change that they have made cost the tax payers more money. Right from the start he raised my taxes on cigarette and then regulated them. All of the other programs will do the same. Like it has been said for a long time tax and spend is the new game in town. The "Obama Bunch" said that he wouldn't raise the taxes on anyone making under $150,00.00 a year (I think that was the figure) well that one didn't last. What I thing he didn't tell everyone is that he would raise the cost of living on all of us to match the spending that that he wants. So in reality no new taxes.

As for Fox News, I don't agree with everything they report but they do tell where the money is coming from and going to. This climate control bill mess is so vast and rushed through Congress so quickly that is was intentional so no one could read the damn thing. Maybe one or two years from now we will find what the cost is. I hope that someone will shoot it down by the time it gets to the senate.

I hope that someone will shoot it down by the time it gets to the senate.

That's the key here; we have to end our reliance on oil, no question about that. The sting needs to be taken out of this bill. If it is such a high priority bill, cut spending to pay for it; don't leverage it on the American people.

DMkatt: There were several on Fox News that didn't like the bail outs of 2008; to your point, the rhetoric didn't spike to the treason level.

If it is such a high priority bill, cut spending to pay for it; don't leverage it on the American people.

wasn't it Obama himself a few weeks ago who said for every new program there had to be a cut in spending.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/10/paygo/

Obama repeated his vow to halve the deficit by the end of his first term, and he said PAYGO is an important step toward making that happen. A previous PAYGO mandate helped erase federal budget deficits in the 1990s, and subsequent ineffective rules contributed to the current budget deficits, Obama said.

"Paying for what you spend is basic common sense. Perhaps that's why, here in Washington, it has been so elusive," the president said Tuesday.

Just another lie. If he is going to keep adding bills and entitlements to the backs of the American people, we will never be able to pay for this. Cut spending. Cut entitlements. Cut foreign aid to say HAMAS, a terrorist organization the Obama team gave aid to. Half these countries we give money to would just as soon cut us at the knees, so stop it.

I love his expression and the way he says "burned!" I crack up every time!

FOX NEWS RECORDS UNPRECEDENTED TOP 10 OUT OF 10 PROGRAMS IN CABLE NEWS FOR 2ND QUARTER... ON PACE TO BE NETWORK'S BEST YEAR EVER...

THE O'REILLY FACTOR 3,191,000

Even if your numbers are correct, they represent a very tiny amount of the television watching American public. Census bureau data maintains there are 113,568,000 households in the US. Assuming there is at least one TV in each household, 3191/113,568, not quite .03 percent of the American households watch the O'Reilly factor. The other shows mentioned are viewed by an even smaller amount of the American public. While they may be popular as cable news programs go, in reality they have a very small following.

http://www.census.gov/prod/1/pop/p25-1129.pdf

according to Rasmussen, people who "strongly disapprove" of Obama is now higher than those who "strongly approve." 33% strongly disapprove of Obama and 31% strongly approve

The most recent Gallup puts the presidents approval rating at 60% approve and 32% disapprove.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Job-Approval.aspx

Clearly, the two companies are talking to very different populations with this magnitude of variation in the results. With the poll results being so varied however, they're pretty much useless for predictive purposes. I tend to agree with this analogy.

http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=7795

Even if your numbers are correct, they represent a very tiny amount of the television watching American public.

Specious argument. No one media outlet captures a majority of the population. Media outlets are rated in terms of their competition.

not quite .03 percent of the American households watch the O'Reilly

If O'Reilly's is that low then think how low Olbermann's must be. O'Reilly is approaching Big three broadcast numbers, which is quite an accomplishment for a cable program.

I don't watch any of them. My point is most Americans don't either.

Perhaps, but then in most elections most Americans don't vote. I'd wager the O'Reilly/Hannity (as well as the Olbermann/Maddow) audience is very much more engaged and aware politically than average.

of course the wealthy care--they're the ones that you libs take all the money from in order to pay for all this insanity.

40% of Americans are conservative. Guess what? most of us aren't rich.

Guess what else? Obama has his OWN oil buddies, too!

40% of Americans are conservative

Source?

Gallup, Jun 2009

The largest contributors to the co2 emmisions on the planet are people and animals, with the methane from the ocean floors being released.

The population keeps growing and the second factor the methane gases are also natural from the oceans, but nobody tells the people these facts.

Only the politicians and their friends will see the benefits of this package that was voted on in the middle of the night without reading it.