Kurtz calls out Hannity for his 'deceptive' editing of Obama's speech

[buck]

He did say that. About 30 seconds after Hannity cuts off the video.

Obama Cleveland jobs speech. Transcript - Lynn Sweet



What did Hannity tell you? "I'm sure the annointed one will make that happen." (referring to the tax increases)

Where I come from, we call that ****ing lying.

Not the same speech. What should we call what you did?

 

[Barbbtx]

No matter how much you dislike the guys policy.. you have to give him credit for going on Fox with O Reilly. That took guts. O Reilly can be ruthless towards people. But you'll never see Sarah Palin on Olbermann..

I doubt Olbermann, Maddow, Mathews, or Ed would ever invite her on, so we'll never know.
Hannity continually invited Obama.

O'Reilly was a teddy bear in that interview. I think that was before he was elected president.
Now Brett Baer was a good interview! Bet Obama won't make that mistake again. He's better off sticking to The Veiw where he only has to deal with one little conservative and the others are just drooling over him.

 

[jallman]

This has been happening ever since Obama took office. Nothing new here...just more underhanded partisan tactics meant to lure those who didn't watch the President's press conference to believe what Hannity and company tell them instead of going out and discovering what was really said for themselves.

Uh...it was happening a lot longer than just since Obama took office. Same thing happened to Bush for 8 years except it was the networks with the other leans.

 

[buck]

He did say that. About 30 seconds after Hannity cuts off the video.

I noticed that some big far left websites did the same thing you attempted to do - maybe you weren't intentionally lying, but were just lied to by them. Maybe since liberal's are normally high on various substances, the originator of this mem was passed out for a couple of days, and had thought only 30 seconds had passed. Shrug.


Please note the dates from all reelvant links:

Kurtz calls out Hannity for his 'deceptive' editing of Obama's speech -- but that's nothing new for Fox | Crooks and Liars

Of course, Jon Stewart had already called out Sean Hannity for his selective edit of President Obama's speech Monday

Stewart teaches MSNBC to selectively edit clips like Fox News | Video Cafe

Obama rolled out his first major speech of the 2010 campaign season on Labor Day. All of the networks said noticed the president was in campaign mode.

Obama Cleveland jobs speech. Transcript - Lynn Sweet

Remarks of President Barack Obama on the Economy - As Prepared for Delivery
Wednesday, September 8th, 2010

 

[Thorgasm]

:lamo :lamo :lamo

and let me guess. you think that the PAYGO rule has recieved even a passing suggestion of obedience? :lol:

were'nt Democrats screaming about What Big Bad Meanies Republicans Are just a couple of months ago because Republicans wanted to pay for unemployment extensions?

Earlier this year, Barack Obama and Congressional Democrats celebrated the signing of their new pay-go rules that require Congress to explicitly fund any new legislation. Since then, they have gone 0-3 in complying with their own legislation, choosing to extend unemployment benefits through borrowing rather than redirect already-allocated funds for the purpose. Politico reports that the Democrats have finally run out of rope on Pay-Go:

The short-term unemployment benefits bill, which was headed toward final passage in the House on Thursday night, also includes the COBRA health program and a Medicare reimbursement adjustment known as the “doc fix.” The bill bypassed pay-as-you-go rules because it was designated as a temporary “emergency” spending plan.

But now Democrats are stuck.

They have been unable to move a longer-term one-year extension of these programs, passed earlier this session, because they already blew the revenues they had expected to use for this bill. Senate and House Democrats must now find a politically acceptable way to pay for the bill.

The tax money for the original bill was a special tax credit known as “black liquor” on biofuels, but Democrats moved those funds to help pay for the health care reform bill...

Not only do Democrats have to deal with their own push to create more permanent long-term jobless benefits, but they also have a budget coming up. They can’t spend $3.8 trillion on $2.4 trillion in revenues any longer, not with their Pay-Go rule standing in the way. They have three choices: cut spending to match revenues, raise taxes to match spending, or waive Pay-Go yet again.

We can skip the first option, because Democrats won’t cut spending after running it up the last three budget cycles. If they raise taxes, they’ll have to do it when they pass the budget — which is due at the end of September, just before the midterms. How would Democrats do in the election if they passed a $1.3 trillion tax hike? Most likely, they’ll simply waive Pay-Go, which will give Republicans a huge rhetorical club with which to beat incumbents in the midterms, but won’t be as politically suicidal as massive tax hikes.

Or — and this is the most likely outcome — Democrats won’t pass a budget at all. They’ll issue continuing resolutions to keep funding the government at the same rate as FY2010 and wait until after the midterms to pass massive tax increases or waive Pay-Go.

It seems you don't understand the Byrd Rule and PAYGO in relations to Bush's tax cuts and why there had to be a sunset.

 

[cpwill]

It seems you don't understand the Byrd Rule and PAYGO in relations to Bush's tax cuts and why there had to be a sunset.

i understand why they put a sunset in there (you have to magically create the future revenues that you know won't happen to pretend that you aren't destroying the country).

i just think it's funny that anyone thinks that Democrats have seriously reinstated (or care about - other than as theater) PAYGO.

 

[pbrauer]

It seems you don't understand the Byrd Rule and PAYGO in relations to Bush's tax cuts and why there had to be a sunset.

The Byrd Rule was adopted in 1985 and amended in 1990. Its main effect has been to prohibit the use of reconciliation for provisions that would increase the deficit beyond 10 years after the reconciliation measure.

Reconciliation (United States Congress) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[buck]

i understand why they put a sunset in there (you have to magically create the future revenues that you know won't happen to pretend that you aren't destroying the country).

That is not the reason. The reason they sunsetted it was because democrats would not agree to pass the tax cuts through normal voting procedures. Republicans tried to make them permanent, most democrats would not allow that. Since this caused them to have to use reconciliation, there had to be a 10 year limit.

 

[Captain America]

At least, the Hannity crowd come by their stupidity honestly. If Herr Leader Hannity said it, they believe it. Baaaaa....

The sad part is, these uninformed, propaganda brainwashed, spoon-fed, America hater's votes count just as much as an informed person's does.

America... gotta love it!

 

[Middleground]

At least, the Hannity crowd come by their stupidity honestly. If Herr Leader Hannity said it, they believe it. Baaaaa....

The sad part is, these uninformed, propaganda brainwashed, spoon-fed, America hater's votes count just as much as an informed person's does.

America... gotta love it!

Ani't that the truth.

The sad part is, those that are defending Hannity are less informed after viewing his misleading show. And yet, they defend him for doing them a big disservice.

Propaganda is alive and well in the US.

 

[Boo Radley]

Just a little Stewart fun with Fox to help brighten this thread:

Watch The Daily Show 9/13/2010: The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Season 15 Episode 114 | Free Full TV Shows Online | Fancast

 

[tryreading]

I have seen Ingraham on tv a few times debating and discussing politics, and she doesn't seem very bright. She really gets on my nerves. It appears at moments, she realises her claims and arguments are baseless or petty, but she keeps going..

I really can't respect somebody who argues without direction or purpose, it's just stiring the pot. She is either stupid or mindless, or both. She seems to latch on to whatever the pundits say, so when she is drilled.. and doesn't know what Rush or Beck would say, she starts fumbling, avoiding questions, repeating herself.. that tired, old game

I see Palin as being somewhat like that also.. except she tries to avoid debate, even during a debate. I remember when O Reilly drilled her though, and Beck.. that was good entertainment.

Can't blame it on the lamestream media and their gotcha questions all the time..

She is the same as the others. If you listen to one of the 'conservative' radio shows, you've heard them all.

She wrote something called The Obama Diaries and it appears to me to be just a drawn out mockery of the Obamas. This is how she spends a large part of her time. She dreams up things like this with no real value to anybody, except to her and her bank account.

 

[Grim17]

Hannity calls the president "the anointed one?"

That should tell you the lack of respect he has for the president.. and that goes beyond simple disagreements about policy. If he can't even refer to him respectfully in simple discussion, then don't expect him to give the pres his fair due when judging anything relative to him.

You mean he's a pundit? What a shock!!!

Still doesn't change the facts concerning the topic of this thread. Remember the topic? I know... I know... Every topic is just an opportunity to attack conservatives for the left and has nothing to do with real discussion.

I will hand it to you all though.... At least you have managed to go nearly 50 posts deep without attacking Glenn Beck.

Oops... my bad.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/bias-...e-editing-obamas-speech-2.html#post1058981557

You almost made it though.

 

[pbrauer]

You mean he's a pundit? What a shock!!!

Oh, Hannity is a pundit now? :lamo :lamo Hannity is nothing more than a political hack. Pundits don't have pets names for politicians.

 

[Dittohead not!]

i understand why they put a sunset in there (you have to magically create the future revenues that you know won't happen to pretend that you aren't destroying the country).

i just think it's funny that anyone thinks that Democrats have seriously reinstated (or care about - other than as theater) PAYGO.

If anyone had such a belief, it has been thoroughly disproved by now. The PAYGO might become popular once again among Democrats if and when they lose power and can't do anything about it anyway, much as the Republicans dropped the balanced budget amendment idea once they got in power. Theater is a lot more popular than actual fiscal responsibility.

 

[WalkingMan]

Yeah, he is definitely not the most honest guy around.

Another thing about him (and Ingraham, Limbaugh, Beck, Levin, Savage and all the other radio gang, prettymuch), is the length and detail and time he will spend critizing every single detail of Obama's public and personal life. This is very petty behavior. He and some of the other entertainers seem to have no pride at all.

People need to remember these jerks are not news correspondents. They're just radio show hosts. There's a big difference. If you want honest news follow creditable news correspondent not a talk show host.

 

[Dittohead not!]

People need to remember these jerks are not news correspondents. They're just radio show hosts. There's a big difference. If you want honest news follow creditable news correspondent not a talk show host.

Lots of people want to hear their biases validated, not honest news.

Ergo, the popularity of talk show hosts.

 

[SheWolf]

Grim, you thank this quote and defend Hannity.... This is funny. You lambasted me and called me a liar through two pages of a thread. You insisted that I correct my error and admit my wrongdoing.

And I did the very same thing your pal Hannity is doing here.

The slightest of difference is that I didn't cut a quote in half like Hannity!

What I didn't do was give the full discloser that Beck gave at the END of his rant.

Hypocrisy at it's finest...

And FTR.. I don't see anything wrong with this either..

Tax cuts are going up....................fact.

Beck saying "I hate 911 victims' families"...............fact

See how NOT being a hypocrite is possible? You need to try it sometime..

Grimm is just full of attacks on me..

Grimm needs to admit the hypocrite he is

 

[SheWolf]

You mean he's a pundit? What a shock!!!

Still doesn't change the facts concerning the topic of this thread. Remember the topic? I know... I know... Every topic is just an opportunity to attack conservatives for the left and has nothing to do with real discussion.

I will hand it to you all though.... At least you have managed to go nearly 50 posts deep without attacking Glenn Beck.

Oops... my bad.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/bias-...e-editing-obamas-speech-2.html#post1058981557

You almost made it though.

Excuse me Grimm, but if anybody else (left or right) had an equally ridiculous pet name for a president I would feel the same way. But unlike you, I am independently minded.. so you'll defend your pundit friends at Fox and then turn to MNBC and condemn the left pundits for saying the same things about YOUR PRESIDENT W BUSH and YOUR neocon and conservative pals on the right

 

[SheWolf]

Oh, Hannity is a pundit now? Hannity is nothing more than a political hack. Pundits don't have pets names for politicians.

And I am sure that pet name has nothing to do with pandering to the rightwing nuts who believe Obama is the anti Christ... He is making people who watch Fox News look like a bunch of idiots.

Grimm, is also hack. I am sure if somebody with big network news program nightly insinuated that W Bush was the anti christ and made Hitler comparisons, he'd would be PO'ed.

I remember righties flying off the handle when people said, "HE ISN'T MY PRESIDENT!"

And the lefties did compare W to Hitler too... The funny thing is, how much the righties complained about it.

OMG THAT IS SOOOOO DISRESPECT. HOW CAN THEY DO THAT TO MY PRESIDENT!!!!!!!

and now they do it. Or the other one..

IT'S UNPATRIOTIC TO GO AGAINST YOUR PRESIDENT IN THE TIME OF WAR!!!!!

:lamo:lamo

Still in two wars when Obama is elected and whadya know...

:lamo:lamo

I guess Grimm was in coma during the W Admim.. except for two times he was briefly awaken to vote for W.

 

[Boo Radley]

Lots of people want to hear their biases validated, not honest news.

Ergo, the popularity of talk show hosts.

As I always say, news as affirmation. To many, anything that doesn't support my bised view is biased. That's how they measure bias. They must have their views affirmed by the news.

 

[b.larset]

They are all drive by- Now adays the media is of two minds They report for your guy or on him. Not much choice anymore.

 

[apdst]

This has been happening ever since Obama took office. Nothing new here...just more underhanded partisan tactics meant to lure those who didn't watch the President's press conference to believe what Hannity and company tell them instead of going out and discovering what was really said for themselves.

That's all how Obama got elected in the first place. Hell, Obama is still blaming everything on Bush.

 

[pbrauer]

Hell, Obama is still blaming everything on Bush.

With good reason!!! Who started the war in Iraq and on who's watch did the economy go south?

 

[TurtleDude]

Lots of people want to hear their biases validated, not honest news.

Ergo, the popularity of talk show hosts.

yet the alleged reporters on main stream media channels are just as bad

example-when the clinton gun ban was set to expire NIGHTLINE had a piece on it and the show started with a film clip of two bank robbers in LA spraying the streets after a robbery with fully automatic assault rifles.


the clear implication was that the clinton ban dying meant that machine guns were going to be available for public purchase

another example of clear bias was a question on Nightline last night asking people what they thought of O'Donnell's EXTREME POSITIONS on certain issue

that sort of bias is far worse than the obvious bias of commentators.