Actually, they're not flunkies at all, it's the taill wagging the dog:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/bushjews.html
http://www.libreopinion.com/members/standarteslc/jewishquestion06.html
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The Making of a Fuehrer
- Thread starter carpro
- Start date
- Status
Actually, they're not flunkies at all, it's the taill wagging the dog:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/bushjews.html
http://www.libreopinion.com/members/standarteslc/jewishquestion06.html
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
Top White House Official Says Obama Team 'Controlled' Media Coverage During Campaign
FOXNews.com
Monday, October 19, 2009
The Obama campaign's press strategy leading up to his election last November focused on "making" the media cover what the campaign wanted and on exercising absolute "control" over coverage, White House Communications Director Anita Dunn told an overseas crowd early this year.
In a video of the event, Dunn is seen describing in detail the media strategy used by then-Sen. Barack Obama's highly disciplined presidential campaign. The video is footage from a Jan. 12 forum hosted by the Global Foundation for Democracy and Development in the Dominican Republic.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/200...bama-team-controlled-media-coverage-campaign/
FOXNews.com
Monday, October 19, 2009
The Obama campaign's press strategy leading up to his election last November focused on "making" the media cover what the campaign wanted and on exercising absolute "control" over coverage, White House Communications Director Anita Dunn told an overseas crowd early this year.
In a video of the event, Dunn is seen describing in detail the media strategy used by then-Sen. Barack Obama's highly disciplined presidential campaign. The video is footage from a Jan. 12 forum hosted by the Global Foundation for Democracy and Development in the Dominican Republic.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/200...bama-team-controlled-media-coverage-campaign/
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
An email I received that seems to fit this general gist of thread!
Someone hit the nail square on the head.
It should be noted that the French queen who said, about those wanting bread, "Let them eat cake" lost her head.
Someone hit the nail square on the head.
It should be noted that the French queen who said, about those wanting bread, "Let them eat cake" lost her head.
:thumbs::thumbsup::applause::smilewinkgrin:
He did run a great campaign, didn't he? Media strategy is a large part of it. How did Obama make the media cover what he wanted them to cover/ Did FOX follow along? Why or why not?
Last edited by a moderator:
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
Sorry just-want-peace. I did not mean to take credit for the email. It was so good I wanted to repeat it. Just didn't get quotes in the right place.
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
Der Fuehrer Thwarted
FOX WARS
The 'post-partisan' president makes an enemies list
By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, October 23, 2009
Rahm Emanuel once sent a dead fish to a live pollster. Now he's put a horse's head in Roger Ailes's bed.
Not very subtle. And not very smart. Ailes doesn't scare easily.
The White House has declared war on Fox News. White House communications director Anita Dunn said that Fox is "opinion journalism masquerading as news." Patting rival networks on the head for their authenticity (read: docility), senior adviser David Axelrod declared Fox "not really a news station." And Chief of Staff Emanuel told (warned?) the other networks not to "be led [by] and following Fox."
Meaning? If Fox runs a story critical of the administration -- from exposing "green jobs" czar Van Jones as a loony 9/11 "truther" to exhaustively examining the mathematical chicanery and hidden loopholes in proposed health-care legislation -- the other news organizations should think twice before following the lead.
The signal to corporations is equally clear: You might have dealings with a federal behemoth that not only disburses more than $3 trillion every year but is extending its reach ever deeper into private industry -- finance, autos, soon health care and energy. Think twice before you run an ad on Fox.
At first, there was little reaction from other media. Then on Thursday, the administration tried to make them complicit in an actual boycott of Fox. The Treasury Department made available Ken Feinberg, the executive pay czar, for interviews with the White House "pool" news organizations -- except Fox. The other networks admirably refused, saying they would not interview Feinberg unless Fox was permitted to as well. The administration backed down.
This was an important defeat because there's a principle at stake here. While government can and should debate and criticize opposition voices, the current White House goes beyond that. It wants to delegitimize any significant dissent. The objective is no secret. White House aides openly told Politico that they're engaged in a deliberate campaign to marginalize and ostracize recalcitrants, from Fox to health insurers to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
There's nothing illegal about such search-and-destroy tactics. Nor unconstitutional. But our politics are defined not just by limits of legality or constitutionality. We have norms, Madisonian norms.
Madison argued that the safety of a great republic, its defense against tyranny, requires the contest between factions or interests. His insight was to understand "the greater security afforded by a greater variety of parties." They would help guarantee liberty by checking and balancing and restraining each other -- and an otherwise imperious government..
More Here!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/22/AR2009102203801_pf.html
FOX WARS
The 'post-partisan' president makes an enemies list
By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, October 23, 2009
Rahm Emanuel once sent a dead fish to a live pollster. Now he's put a horse's head in Roger Ailes's bed.
Not very subtle. And not very smart. Ailes doesn't scare easily.
The White House has declared war on Fox News. White House communications director Anita Dunn said that Fox is "opinion journalism masquerading as news." Patting rival networks on the head for their authenticity (read: docility), senior adviser David Axelrod declared Fox "not really a news station." And Chief of Staff Emanuel told (warned?) the other networks not to "be led [by] and following Fox."
Meaning? If Fox runs a story critical of the administration -- from exposing "green jobs" czar Van Jones as a loony 9/11 "truther" to exhaustively examining the mathematical chicanery and hidden loopholes in proposed health-care legislation -- the other news organizations should think twice before following the lead.
The signal to corporations is equally clear: You might have dealings with a federal behemoth that not only disburses more than $3 trillion every year but is extending its reach ever deeper into private industry -- finance, autos, soon health care and energy. Think twice before you run an ad on Fox.
At first, there was little reaction from other media. Then on Thursday, the administration tried to make them complicit in an actual boycott of Fox. The Treasury Department made available Ken Feinberg, the executive pay czar, for interviews with the White House "pool" news organizations -- except Fox. The other networks admirably refused, saying they would not interview Feinberg unless Fox was permitted to as well. The administration backed down.
This was an important defeat because there's a principle at stake here. While government can and should debate and criticize opposition voices, the current White House goes beyond that. It wants to delegitimize any significant dissent. The objective is no secret. White House aides openly told Politico that they're engaged in a deliberate campaign to marginalize and ostracize recalcitrants, from Fox to health insurers to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
There's nothing illegal about such search-and-destroy tactics. Nor unconstitutional. But our politics are defined not just by limits of legality or constitutionality. We have norms, Madisonian norms.
Madison argued that the safety of a great republic, its defense against tyranny, requires the contest between factions or interests. His insight was to understand "the greater security afforded by a greater variety of parties." They would help guarantee liberty by checking and balancing and restraining each other -- and an otherwise imperious government..
More Here!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/22/AR2009102203801_pf.html
If by 'great campaign' you mean "habitually lied," then I guess you're right.
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
Actually winning without fraud. Bush won by fraud.
[personal attack snipped]
Last edited by a moderator:
Last edited by a moderator:
And look at the verse under his post. Most likely intended as a political statement than a biblical one given his post.
KenH
Well-Known Member
How do you suggest that limited government advocates overcome this?
Alatide, you just spoke volumes about yourself.
Are you already working on your next screenname?
I'll make this one statement and then leave it alone: this past week I sat with a kid who had been molested. I cried with them, prayed with them, and I watched them begin to put their devastated life back together.
I cannot imagine someone so devoid of a conscience that they would accuse another believer falsely of such a terrible thing. The BB says I can't question your salvation, and I won't...but I've never seen a Christian so flippant about it, and so willing to accuse. You can take that for what it's worth.
I would hope you're gone for that one. However, we all know you'll be back in a week or less, under yet another name.
Don't ever accuse me of that again. I don't care if you were "kidding," "sarcastic," or dead serious. Don't ever do it again.
Are you already working on your next screenname?
I'll make this one statement and then leave it alone: this past week I sat with a kid who had been molested. I cried with them, prayed with them, and I watched them begin to put their devastated life back together.
I cannot imagine someone so devoid of a conscience that they would accuse another believer falsely of such a terrible thing. The BB says I can't question your salvation, and I won't...but I've never seen a Christian so flippant about it, and so willing to accuse. You can take that for what it's worth.
I would hope you're gone for that one. However, we all know you'll be back in a week or less, under yet another name.
Don't ever accuse me of that again. I don't care if you were "kidding," "sarcastic," or dead serious. Don't ever do it again.
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
With the moderators away I am stepping in to close this thread.
- Status