Wonder what IJF thinks about this.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2240011.htmlWASHINGTON -- 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.BTW, you are still a young fellow. The expressions flamer and screamer have been around for a very long time to define a buffoon.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?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.nytimes.com/2006/10/17/us...anted=all&_r=0President 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.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_157701.htmlBarack 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.
Last edited by 21st Amendment; 12-05-2012 at 03:39 PM.