FauxNews Signs On To Tea Party Agenda, Aggressively Promoting Anti-Obama Protests

[jefferson_dem]

Run time: 01:59 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zS-cAd9iPDA   Posted on YouTube: April 10, 2009 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: April 12, 2009 By DU Member: jefferson_dem Views on DU: 1324

 
Beck to attend $500 a plate fundraiser for ‘tea party’ protests.
As ThinkProgress and others have pointed out, the Fox News Channel has staked out its position as the “voice of opposition” to the Obama administration by aggressively promoting the radical anti-Obama “tea party” protests set for April 15. Fox News hosts like Neil Cavuto claim that they are only broadcasting live from the events in order to “cover” them. But as Media Matters’ Karl Frisch pointed out in his column yesterday, Cavuto’s colleague, Glenn Beck, announced on his radio show this week that he is raising money for the protests as well:

Beck isn’t just helping with turnout. Discussing his participation in the upcoming protest at the Alamo in San Antonio on his syndicated radio program, Beck announced, “I’m going to do a fundraiser for them” to help defray costs. “So you can come and you can have lunch with me. … I don’t know any of the details, but I’ve heard it’s like $500 a plate or something like that.”

Watch a ThinkProgress video demonstrating Fox News’ tea party advocacy:

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/04/11/beck-tea-party-fundraiser/

[Tangerine LaBamba]

1. Tell you what ..........

The teabaggers are starting to concern me. The idiocy of their reasoning is beyond question, but their numbers are surprising, and I'm gonna be curious to see what April 15 looks like across the country.

If they're so upset about the tax issues, how come they never protested the billions that Chimpy Fucknuts and his gang of thugs pissed up a rope in Iraq? Halliburton must be laughing its corporate ass off at these suckers ..........................

[LynnTheDem]

2. Fox "News" finally coming out of the closet,

and outright admitting their "fair and balanced" bullshit is bullshit.

How many times can Fox "News" viewers be conned tricked duped by Fox "News"? Dunno, but they're still going strong!

[TheEuclideanOne]

3. Not really

I understand what you are saying, and my first thought when watching this was "Is this coverage part of the 'Fair' or part of the 'Balanced'?". The reality is that this is no different than their coverage has ever been. They have never been fair and balanced, never will be. This is really no different. It does seem like they are being more blatant and "in your face" recently.

Nonetheless, we all hold out hope that one day they are going to make a big announcement. "Today we have decided to drop the Fair and Balanced tagline. The reality is that we are just the propaganda wing of the republican party."

[LynnTheDem]

4. Exactly; they've never been "fair & balanced". But they are being obvious

(as in even to rightwingnuts obvious) about it now.

[AlbertCat]

5. Didn't the Fed Judge say of Fox's law suit against Al Frankin....

....it was "totally without merit"....and Frankin on his radio show suggested maybe Fox could change their slogan to that: FOX NEWS: TOTALLY WITHOUT MERIT

Remember, that law suit was by Fox trying to trademark "Fair & Balanced" because Frankin had satirically used it in his book title. When was that? 2004?

[Left Coast2020]

6. I just read Will Pits piece on media outlets like this fanning the flames

of hate once again. These scummy freaks need to have their FCC license revoked for hate speech. Not free speech, but hate speech. And spreading fear among these uneducated nut-cases who are going out and buying more guns than you can shake a stick at. They want another civil war. These a-holes need to be confronted. And the way to do that is by revoking foxes broadcast license, and getting people like Cuvoto, "Hasen't-Any", and Limp-butt off the air. Savage too. Can anyone tell me if I am wrong here? I don't think so.

Speak of the devil, here is WP's story link:

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/WilliamPitt/638

[Liberal_Christian]

7. "I got angry" ... and stupid; here's why-

BARAK OBAMA

%39 for those making $250,000 or over

The following are ALL republican presidents (with the exception of Nixon who was a Quaker, but a GOP endorsed conservative nonetheless);

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/151.html

RONALD REAGAN (81-89):

From 1981 to 1986 Reagan had taxes at:
%50 for those making $175,250 or more (married filing jointly)
%50 for those making $88,270 or more (single)

GERALD FORD (74-77):

Through his entire 3 year term Ford had taxes at:
%70 for those making $200,000 or more (married filing jointly)
%70 for those making $100,000 or more (single)

RICHARD NIXON (69-74):

(same as Ford) Through his entire 3 year term Ford had taxes at:
%70 for those making $200,000 or more (married filing jointly)
%70 for those making $100,000 or more (single)

DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER (53-61):

Through his entire term Eisenhower had taxes at:
%91 for those making $400,000 or more (married filing jointly)
%91 for those making $200,000 or more (single)

%89 for those making $200,000 (married filing jointly)
%89 for those making $100,000 (single)

%75 for those making $100,000 (married filing jointly)
%75 for those making $50,000 (single)

HERBERT HOOVER (29-33):

In 1932 and 1933 taxes were at:
%60 for those making $400,000 or more
%56 for those making $100,000 or more

WARREN G. HARDING (21-23):

In 1922:
%58 for those making $200,000 or more
%56 for those making $100,000 or more

In 1923:
%58 for those making $200,000 or more
%48 for those making $100,000 or more

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/151.html

*Funny, I don't remember learning about all these "socialist" presidents in history class.