Fox News: LIARS or Just STUPID???

@anniepa (27955)
United States
March 2, 2010 4:47pm CST
I think I'm going to go with "liars" myself! There's no way these reporters on Fox News - you know, the ones who just report the news and allegedly don't add their own opinions unlike O'Reilly, Beck and Hannity - REALLY aren't aware of what "budget reconciliation" and "the nuclear option" mean or that they're not the same thing! They're not even simply interchanging the two terms anymore, they're going so far as to say outright that "what used to be called the nuclear option is not called reconciliation" to imply that it's the DEMOCRATS who are intentionally trying to mislead the people. What do you think? Which are they, liars or dummies? Do you think their ploy has worked and that there ARE actually people who think "reconciliation" is the same thing as the "nuclear option"? Annie : http://vodpod.com/watch/3149877-ultimate-fox-news-revisionism-what-used-to-be-called-the-nuclear-option-is-now-called-reconciliation- : http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201002250021
3 people like this
9 responses
@sierras236 (2739)
• United States
3 Mar 10
Wow Annie, those links are far more bias then Fox News. Maybe you should look for more neutral sources instead of these clearly spun and obviously bias sites. However, the real facts are that reconciliation will not be an option until the House of Representatives actually pass the Senate bill. The House is not very keen on the Senate bill because of a number of issues. Oh yeah, the Presidential recommendations cannot be implemented into the bill because that same exact version of the health care bill has to pass both houses before reconciliation can be used. Reconciliation is used mainly for budget bills and even the maker of the bill is against using reconciliation for this health bill. "Nuclear" as defined by slang would state that it is the last ditch option or the very last chance to do something before it is gone forever. This goes back to dropping the H bomb on Hiroshima. Therefore, the "Nuclear" option would be the absolute last thing Congress can do to get the bill passed. Some see the fact that the Democrats are using the reconciliation clause as their absolute last chance to get the health care bill passed or it otherwise will die on the floor of Congress. It really depends on how you look at it. If you think reconciliation is the absolute last chance for the health care bill to pass, then you can label it as the "Nuclear" option. However, if you think that Congress has other options to passing the bill, then it is technically not the "Nuclear" option. Aside from all of that, the President has been quite guilty of re-banding himself.
2 people like this
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
3 Mar 10
The links I posted were for the purpose of seeing the videos of the Fox reporters making the claim that "reconciliation used to be called the Nuclear Option". Those are the actual newscasts where they said those words so there's nothing "biased" about them. I think many here are missing my point entirely and I'm not sure if I didn't make myself clear or what...lol! The facts are back in 2005, when Bush was President and the GOP had the majority in the House and the Senate, the GOP Senate leadership threatened to use a rare process which they coined as the "nuclear option" in regard to stopping the Democrats from being able to filibuster Bush's judicial nominees. Therefore, these reporters aren't just labeling "reconciliation" as the "nuclear option" because it's a "last ditch option", they're making the claim that the latter is the word previously used in place of the former, which is definitely not true. My feeling is that if anyone wishes to argue for or against the use of budget reconciliation on its merits, that's fine, but at least let's be honest about it. I believe this whole confusing of the two terms began with the videos of the President, Vice President and several other high profile Democrats speaking out against the "Nuclear Option" back in 2005 but being represented as them being against "reconciliation" which was disingenuous at best. The truth is reconciliation has been used to pass just about every major health care bill we've had as well as all of the Bush tax cuts. On several occasions the V.P. at the time had cast the deciding vote. Annie A
• United States
3 Mar 10
I forgot to add that looking back at history, 2005 wasn't the first time the "Nuclear option" term was used. I believe the first time the phase was coined in conjunction with the government was during WWII when the US President at the time was presented with the "Nuclear option." In that case, it meant dropping two A-bombs on Japan.
@mslena75 (561)
• United States
3 Mar 10
There is a reason they call it Faux News. I think they are all bat crap crazy.
2 people like this
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
3 Mar 10
lol! Annie
@irishidid (8687)
• United States
3 Mar 10
Really? This liar looks exactly like Keith Olbermann from MSNBC. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMdPTpOyUk4
1 person likes this
@irishidid (8687)
• United States
3 Mar 10
Maddow is kinda manly.
1 person likes this
• United States
3 Mar 10
You know, every time Chris Matthews drops his big word, "monochromatic," when talking about Republican/conservative audiences, I always look long and hard for any diversity in his immediate vicinity. Obly and the lot are surely straight up whiter than the whitest white man. Maddow! lol I apologize. But then I remember: As long as you're claiming to be on the side of the "victims," you don't really have to separate yourself from the supposed victimizers. I seen that Olby YouTube vid has nearly 300k hits. If only Countdown could get those types of numbers.
1 person likes this
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
3 Mar 10
Dude, that was awesome! Seriously though, MSNBC is the most racist network I've ever seen in my life. I'm not saying that because they have a lineup of white people on their network, I'm saying it because it seems to be all they ever talk about. Every time I see Chris Matthews he's whining about how the people at town halls are all white, you know, as if he's been to one. Olbermann does the same thing. They clearly subscribe to the racist belief that if white people are against something they should be ignored. Think about what people would say if Rush Limbaugh were out there saying that large groups of people should be ignored because they're black?
1 person likes this
• United States
3 Mar 10
The mindless people that believe anything that comes out of the mouths of anyone that shows up on FOX (or any political TV/Radio program). It is all a game of getting your message out to YOUR people, and making them tell all of their friends what they heard. It is Karl Rove politics: The facts don't matter, as long as YOUR people believe what you are telling them it true (WMD in Iraq, Saddam planned 9/11, your neighbor is a terrorist so we need to tap their phone without a warrant, the constitution doesn't matter during a time of war, if you don't agree with me you are UNAMERICAN). I heard Brit Hume on O'Reilly talking about Obama being a socialist: I thought Hume was one of their "reporters", not a talking head. The problem today is that "news" people are asked their opinion, and they give it. Back in the day, you didn't know what political party reporters were from, and you didn't care. Today people will actually ask them how they feel, not because they care, but because they need someone to agree with them on something.
2 people like this
• United States
2 Mar 10
Personally I do see it as "nulcear" option. Because it is going to completely distroy some of their careers for doing it. Especially sence it is not being done the regular way. They can't get it passed with 60 votes...so they are determined to have their way...so they are using this option. As for the "republicans" did it first arguement....well the american public did not like it either and the republicans paid for it. They lost a lot of seats. They lost control of the house and senate. Looks like the democrats did not learn from the republicans mistake. They are being just as arrogant and stupid. The republicans acted like dictators and paid a price....so will the democrats. The democrats campaigned on how high handed and horrible the republicans behaved. I agree with them. They promised they were going to behave better. But they are repeating the same mistakes. Fox news is not "fair". Neither is MSNBC. Or CNN. They all have their agendas and their slants on the news to push the side they support. There is no such thing as "fair and balanced" news anymore. None of them just give the facts anymore.
1 person likes this
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
3 Mar 10
Lil, this isn't a matter of how you or anyone else sees it, the "Nuclear Option" is an actual gimmick or whatever you want to call it that the GOP threatened to use back in 2005. It's NOT reconciliation, not even close. To put it simply, it would be if the V.P., acting in his capacity as President of the Senate, were to declare that the current majority doesn't agree with the rules as they stand and that they were going to vote to end the use of the filibuster. That would require a simple majority of 51, or 50 with the V.P. breaking the tie. The Democrats have NOT threatened to do that! Which time or times do you mean that the Republicans used reconciliation and lost a lot of seats? I think you're confused because they've used it many times and I don't ever even remember there being any outcry over it. I realize all networks have some bias, as long as you have humans running news organizations I suppose that's how it will be but in this case Fox intentionally distorted the facts. There has NEVER been a time when reconciliation has been called the Nuclear Option. Annie
1 person likes this
• United States
3 Mar 10
oh I know it is sensationalism. But I look at this way...if they use reconcilation to pass this bill....a lot of american public is going to go "nuclear". Look at it the reaction that is going to come from it. You are right there is a lot of rederick on both sides. Another poster put it a better way...it is a last ditch effort...last option open to them. just like in war...nukes are your LAST resort. Republicans lost seats in the past two house and senate races because not only their use of reconcilation...but also their high handed approach to governing. The same approach the dems are using now. If you can't get it passed in a regular vote...don't do it. Cramming something down the americans throats is never a good idea..no matter which side is doing it. There were outcries when they did it. Just not as loud as now. A lot of American public is at a boiling point with our government and how they are doing things. It takes a while for it get to that point. Took long in my opinion. But it has gotten there finally. So yes...more people are fed up and speaking up about it...thanks to what the republicans and Bush did. They learned their lesson with them and are not about to let the government act that way again. Not without a fight. Two wrongs don't make a right. And the republicans parties behavor in the past should not be a gauge used to see if something is ok to do or not. The whole "they did it so I can do it" does not make it RIGHT or even OK. It just makes them both wrong.
1 person likes this
• United States
3 Mar 10
Fox News is the propaganda arm of the conservative movement. They're not stupid, they're lying and they know they're lying.
2 people like this
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
3 Mar 10
That's my theory too. Former GOP politicians never go away, they become Fox News contributors. Annie
• United States
3 Mar 10
Both, I mean, they are to the far right, what do expect? They are a biased new channel. They will not tell the truth and they will feed the conservative people exactly what they want to hear.
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
3 Mar 10
I agree with everything you just said! Annie
1 person likes this
@clrumfelt (5597)
• Tennessee Ridge, Tennessee
3 Mar 10
The dems have relabeled the reconciliation process so many times trying to make the idea more palatable to the American people, who really knows what they are calling it now (simple majority, maybe?)I don't think the Fox News people are liars or dummies. They don't promise not to editorialize the news, just to try and offer a fair and balanced debate, which they do.
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
3 Mar 10
So you don't think saying "reconciliation used to be called the nuclear option" is a lie, even though reconciliation has never been called the nuclear option? Now it's MY turn to be confused! Annie
1 person likes this
@clrumfelt (5597)
• Tennessee Ridge, Tennessee
4 Mar 10
Beg pardon, Annie, it wasn't Fox News who dubbed reconciliation the "nuclear option." It was the democrats in 2005 when they weren't getting their own way. Take a look. http://www.theyoungturks.com/story/2010/2/24/23531/4251/Diary/Reconciliation-2010-Nuclear-Option-2005
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
3 Mar 10
Still glued to the blogs aren't you Annie? I'm aware that "the nuclear option" isn't being used to describe the exact same process that went on last time, but it's still the same basic principle. The senate is gridlocked by filibuster and they are attempting to use shady and inappropriate techniques to overcome it. I just wonder why I've never heard you complain about all the filibusters by democrats when Bush was president and yet now you think a simple majority should be all that ever matters.
1 person likes this
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
3 Mar 10
NO, I'm NOT glued to any blogs, Taskr! I spent several hours trying to find the videos of what I'd seen for myself on TV of the various Fox personalities making the claim that reconciliation and the nuclear option are the same thing. Anyway, it's NOT the same principle AT ALL! Reconciliation has been used many, MANY times to pass major legislation including all the Bush tax cuts, COBRA, and various changes to Medicare and Medicaid. The "Nuclear Option" was THREATENED once, as far as I know, by then Senate Majority Leader Frist regarding Bush's judicial nominees. I've never liked the whole concept of the filibuster. Had myLot existed in 2005 I'd have probably been complaining about it here then. Since when is a MAJORITY a "shady technique"? The House and the Senate, the latter with a "super-majority", have already passed health care reform bills. Reconciliation will simply be used to make some minor changes to put the two bills together and that only requires a simple majority. Annie