Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 28

Thread: Obama Meets With Rachel Maddow, Al Sharpton, 'Influential Progressives'

  1. #1
    Rookie
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    940
    Post Thanks / Like

    Obama Meets With Rachel Maddow, Al Sharpton, 'Influential Progressives'

    Wonder what IJF thinks about this.


    WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama met with Rachel Maddow, Al Sharpton and other "influential progressives" on Tuesday as part of his campaign to sell the public on the need to extend the Bush middle-class tax cuts.

    White House deputy press secretary Josh Earnest confirmed the meeting took place. It wasn't listed on Obama's schedule.

    "This afternoon at the White House, the President met with influential progressives to talk about the importance of preventing a tax increase on middle class families, strengthening our economy and adopting a balanced approach to deficit reduction," Earnest said in a statement Tuesday.

    Earnest wouldn't give details on who was in the meeting or how long it lasted, but HuffPost spotted several attendees on their way in just after 3 p.m., including MSNBC's Maddow, Sharpton and Lawrence O'Donnell. Ed Schultz, also from MSNBC, tweeted a photo just outside of the West Wing. Arianna Huffington, president and editor-in-chief of The Huffington Post Media Group, was also in the meeting.

    Obama has held similar gatherings in the past. He organized a meeting with liberal columnists in January 2009, had an off-the-record chat with progressive media types in October 2009 and held a lunch with progressive pundits in June 2010 to discuss the Gulf oil spill, among other topics.

    Ironically, the president said in a Bloomberg TV interview earlier Tuesday that he doesn't pay much attention to what people say on cable news. During the interview, he was asked about Republican attacks on U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice -- many of which have been on cable news programs -- and whether he feels boxed into a corner about potentially nominating her as secretary of state.

    "You know, I don't really spend a lot of time on, you know, what folks say on cable news programs," Obama replied.
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2240011.html

  2. #2
    All League
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    3,565
    Post Thanks / Like
    FORWARD!!!!!!!

  3. #3
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,550
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Ernie View Post
    I think its silly and a waste of time much like it was an equal waste of time when he met with charles Krauthammer and other far-right media heads after the 2008 election.

    Its all for show.

  4. #4
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,748
    Post Thanks / Like
    Not suprising.

    Bush II met with Rush and other similar "influential conservatives".

    Why would Obama be expected to be different?

    The media is a tool to a politician, regardless of party.

  5. #5
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    7,422
    Post Thanks / Like

  6. #6
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,656
    Post Thanks / Like
    How is calling for 1.6 billion in new tax hikes on top of the Obamacare tax hikes and calling for just 300 Billion in spending cuts a balanced approach to dealing with the deficit? Only in the twisted mind of a progressive.

  7. #7
    Rookie
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    940
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by intelligentjetsfan View Post
    I think its silly and a waste of time much like it was an equal waste of time when he met with charles Krauthammer and other far-right media heads after the 2008 election.

    Its all for show.
    No, he is giving them his Talking Points personally in hopes of influenceing the masses.

  8. #8
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    4,850
    Post Thanks / Like
    I'm surprised the sissy Chris Matthews wasn't there as well.
    That MSNBC line-up has about 20 viewers. Flamers.
    While Fox clearly has some bias, I do not see it as emphatic with Neil Cavuto or "The Five" which actually has two communists as regular participants.

  9. #9
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,748
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by palmetto defender View Post
    Flamers.
    Bigoted epithets are not appropriate, nor needed, for the discourse we have here.

    If you really feel the need to label MSNBC's "20 viewers" as homosexuals, then call them homosexuals. Our collectivie discourse is lowered by use of terms like "flamer" or "fag*ot" or "ni**er" or "cracker" or "redneck" or the like.

    The least we can try and do is have basic respect in our terminology, even for things we disagree with.

  10. #10
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    4,850
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish View Post
    Bigoted epithets are not appropriate, nor needed, for the discourse we have here.

    If you really feel the need to label MSNBC's "20 viewers" as homosexuals, then call them homosexuals. Our collectivie discourse is lowered by use of terms like "flamer" or "fag*ot" or "ni**er" or "cracker" or "redneck" or the like.

    The least we can try and do is have basic respect in our terminology, even for things we disagree with.

    Now, now. That's hardly bigoted. No mention of one's race or religion. Just that they are loud mouthed fools on MSNBC. I certainly hope you don't disagree as you would seem to have lost some of your observation skills.
    A "flamer" is a loud mouth intrusve fool. A "troll" here could be considered a flamer. Did not call anyone a faggot. Have never done so on JI - or elsewhere. Or redneck (that would be PK's tack) or cracker (we have some here who have used it).
    Now I did use sissy. Let's face it with Matthews - accurate.
    BTW, you are still a young fellow. The expressions flamer and screamer have been around for a very long time to define a buffoon. In that regard, Rex Ryan is a flamer, as an example.

  11. #11
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,748
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by palmetto defender View Post
    A "flamer" is a loud mouth intrusve fool.
    Flamer is a derrogatory term for homosexual.

    If you were unaware of that, now you know.

    BTW, you are still a young fellow. The expressions flamer and screamer have been around for a very long time to define a buffoon.
    I've never heard flamer used in the context of "screamer". I've heard "flaming" or "getting flamed" used in internet parlance for expressing a trolling or unpopular position, and the mountain of angry criticism such posts usually engender.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamer

    But used to mean "loud mouth", no, I've never heard that one.

    In any event, I'd venture that meaning has now been eclipsed by other more current meanings, and one of them is equivalent to "fag".

    Like other similar terms, it's probably best to be aware of their alternative/derragatory meanings, and simply not use them in circumstance where they could/would be misinterprited when a more common/current term would suffice.

  12. #12
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    4,850
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish View Post
    Flamer is a derrogatory term for homosexual.

    If you were unaware of that, now you know.



    I've never heard flamer used in the context of "screamer". I've heard "flaming" or "getting flamed" used in internet parlance for expressing a trolling or unpopular position, and the mountain of angry criticism such posts usually engender.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamer

    But used to mean "loud mouth", no, I've never heard that one.

    In any event, I'd venture that meaning has now been eclipsed by other more current meanings, and one of them is equivalent to "fag".

    Like other similar terms, it's probably best to be aware of their alternative/derragatory meanings, and simply not use them in circumstance where they could/would be misinterprited when a more common/current term would suffice.

    Flamer "CAN" perhaps be that. I look upon the term as I defined it.
    As I indicated, you are younger, I am older. Words have, in some cases, evolved. Concession on the dual meaning concept. Believe me, a flamer is one who rants uncontrollably (also a screamer). Hence the MSNBC crowd.
    Others have used the f** expression here. Not I. I use nuanced expressions. If I needed to call someone a f**, then I would do so. I tend not to be that insulting.

  13. #13
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,748
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by palmetto defender View Post
    I tend not to be that insulting.
    Then logic would dictate that you appreciate that terms meaning has evolved (which you do seem to get) over time, and hence choose to no longer use it.

    But you are free to use any term you wish. But used as you used it, you should probably expect pushback by those who would read it as it's current (not older, perhaps out-dated or no longer commonly used) meaning.

  14. #14
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    4,850
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish View Post
    Then logic would dictate that you appreciate that terms meaning has evolved (which you do seem to get) over time, and hence choose to no longer use it.

    But you are free to use any term you wish. But used as you used it, you should probably expect pushback by those who would read it as it's current (not older, perhaps out-dated or no longer commonly used) meaning.

    I will not (as I never do) try to offend a JI person UNLESS I am directly attacked - at which time I can be obnoxious (more than usual).
    Just for the record, I believe HETEROSEXUAL people of either sex can be flamers - see Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer and yes, even Sarah Palin. I am fair and balanced. LOL.

  15. #15
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    5,460
    Post Thanks / Like
    Back on topic, the language in the article is disturbing. Obama has gathered this group to "sell the public" on his policies. Is it therefore safe to assume that he believes MSNBC is a mouthpiece for his administration, i.e. state-sponsored news media? And, as a result, we can also assume that NBC Universal is a willing partner in this kind of relationship. That's frightening.

  16. #16
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,748
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Bonhomme Richard View Post
    Back on topic, the language in the article is disturbing. Obama has gathered this group to "sell the public" on his policies. Is it therefore safe to assume that he believes MSNBC is a mouthpiece for his administration, i.e. state-sponsored news media? And, as a result, we can also assume that NBC Universal is a willing partner in this kind of relationship. That's frightening.
    No more so than when Bush did the exact same thing.

    These personalities are opinion-givers. Not News.

    Same as Rush.

    The President meeting with select opinion givers that supprot him to promote his viewpoint is perfectly fine, does not mean NBC is complicit in that support per se, and is not new nor unusual.

    TLDR: You sound like a liberal decrying FOX News. You're smarter than that.

  17. #17
    Rookie
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    940
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish View Post
    No more so than when Bush did the exact same thing.
    These personalities are opinion-givers. Not News.

    Same as Rush.

    The President meeting with select opinion givers that supprot him to promote his viewpoint is perfectly fine, does not mean NBC is complicit in that support per se, and is not new nor unusual.

    TLDR: You sound like a liberal decrying FOX News. You're smarter than that.
    Link?

  18. #18
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,748
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Ernie View Post
    Link?
    Not even two seconds of basic google-fu:

    RUSH: The president and I, Ed Gillespie in the room who took over for Dan Bartlett. We had cigars and beverages for a couple hours in the Treaty Room up in the residence. It was so much fun.

    http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/20...resident_bush3
    Again, what part of this is shocking to anyone? What part of it is bothing you? That a leftist President would work with leftist opinion-talking heads?

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    576
    Post Thanks / Like
    President Bush discussed his policies with conservative radio hosts last month at the White House, including, from left, Mike Gallagher, Neal Boortz, Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity and Michael Medved.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/17/us...anted=all&_r=0

    Barack Obama took the next big step in his Republican charm offensive on Tuesday night, when he dined with several of the nation's most prominent conservative pundits.

    The president-elect arrived at the Chevy Chase, Md., home of syndicated columnist George Will shortly after 6:30 p.m., according to a press pool report. Greeting him at the residence were other luminaries of the conservative commentariat, including the Weekly Standard's William Kristol, New York Times columnist David Brooks, and Charles Krauthammer of the Washington Post.
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_157701.html
    Last edited by 21st Amendment; 12-05-2012 at 03:39 PM.

  20. #20
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    22,462
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by palmetto defender View Post
    Flamer "CAN" perhaps be that. I look upon the term as I defined it.
    Back in the day they would burn homosexuals. The bundle of sticks was called a faggot of sticks. So, when the homosexual was on fire, he was a flamer.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us