Report: The White House Is Misleading The American People

a reply to: rickynews

thanks for bringing this to our attention.


sadly tho, your OP is fast becoming about , how my news service is better than yours. i dislike when people do that.
this shouldn't be all about FOX vs (insert fave news site here ), but sadly it side tracked to that right away.

originally posted by: thishereguy
a reply to: rickynews

thanks for bringing this to our attention.


sadly tho, your OP is fast becoming about , how my news service is better than yours. i dislike when people do that.
this shouldn't be all about FOX vs (insert fave news site here ), but sadly it side tracked to that right away.

The OP is about whether this White House is reporting to the American People with integrity. With that, there are some that want to attack the messenger, and try to distract instead of increase their conscious awareness as to what is really going on outside in the real world - and that's fine with me, but the real world is what we have to see.

originally posted by: rickynews

originally posted by: thishereguy
a reply to: rickynews

thanks for bringing this to our attention.


sadly tho, your OP is fast becoming about , how my news service is better than yours. i dislike when people do that.
this shouldn't be all about FOX vs (insert fave news site here ), but sadly it side tracked to that right away.

The OP is about whether this White House is reporting to the American People with integrity.

yes i know. and as i said thanks for posting.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

FYI, I do look at both sides. I also have a habit of looking at 'reviews' about websites, and how skewed they are.

But thanks for the reminder.
I spent hours investigating "Fox News", and many other hard right-wing sources, and there are some that are simply to be dismissed and ignored EXCEPT to compare and contrast them to other sources.

I have tried it. Denying willful ignorance is my method.
I read it? Then I fact check it with as many sources as I can find to get to a balance.
FOX "News" merits no respect, in my opinion.
I won't bother to repeat the other sources I immediately dismiss, but suffice it to say there are sources that even ATS has banned from the boards. Anyone who quotes FOX News, the Daily Mail, prisonplanet/infowars, Glenn Beck, Lee Strobel, Rush Limbaugh, or on the other hand the Huffington Post or MSNBC or any clearly propagandist site is, in my opinion, falling for BS.

Have a great day!!

Really?! whole HOURS huh? interesting.....

Ever wonder what the reviews say about ATS?

The point is "reviews" can say any number of things, reviews do not matter.....

What matters are facts........

Try researching those........

Again if you can find anything in this report that is NOT true, that FOX is reporting then please bring it forth...

otherwise just outright writting off the story because you do not like its source is the height of ignorance....

Id like to add that im not trying to personally attack you, I just dont think your methods to finding out the truth are forthcoming....

Im sure youre a great person , and its good to have opinions to swap, thanks for being curteous

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

FYI, I do look at both sides. I also have a habit of looking at 'reviews' about websites, and how skewed they are.

But thanks for the reminder.
I spent hours investigating "Fox News", and many other hard right-wing sources, and there are some that are simply to be dismissed and ignored EXCEPT to compare and contrast them to other sources.

I have tried it. Denying willful ignorance is my method.
I read it? Then I fact check it with as many sources as I can find to get to a balance.
FOX "News" merits no respect, in my opinion.
I won't bother to repeat the other sources I immediately dismiss, but suffice it to say there are sources that even ATS has banned from the boards. Anyone who quotes FOX News, the Daily Mail, prisonplanet/infowars, Glenn Beck, Lee Strobel, Rush Limbaugh, or on the other hand the Huffington Post or MSNBC or any clearly propagandist site is, in my opinion, falling for BS.

Have a great day!!

Really?! whole HOURS huh? interesting.....

Ever wonder what the reviews say about ATS?

The point is "reviews" can say any number of things, reviews do not matter.....

What matters are facts........

Try researching those........

Again if you can find anything in this report that is NOT true, that FOX is reporting then please bring it forth...

otherwise just outright writting off the story because you do not like its source is the height of ignorance....

This is exactly what left-wing liberals do...they don't want to look at any facts if the facts counter the (un)-reality of what they want, and what they so desperately want others to believe. Sounds like victims of brain-washing to me.

Why can't the American people simply get the straight truth, and have access to any and all facts on any given topic, and then let the people decide, through their elected government, what we want, or what we support or do not support? Or, what we want done, or not done? Or, How important or unimportant an issue or topic is, or should be?

Is that so much to ask from our elected representation in all branches of government? Including the White House?

Is this a Democratic Party issue? Is this a Republican party issue?
Answer: No, this is an American People issue.

I kinda thought it was in the job description of those in the white house to mislead the American people.

originally posted by: rickymouse
I kinda thought it was in the job description of those in the white house to mislead the American people.

Or so it seems...

The funniest thing is that people are jumping to defend Obama.

Is anyone shocked? I mean, really....when was the last time an American president wasn't trying to mislead The People?

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

If you like being misled, you can keep being misled.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Maybe Jimmy Carter.....before him Kennedy.

Interesting how the anti-Obama crowd is generally very pro-Reagan.

We are growing increasingly agitated by being mislead. Not all of us are distracted by all the new technology and social networking to catch the lies.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
The funniest thing is that people are jumping to defend Obama.

Is anyone shocked? I mean, really....when was the last time an American president wasn't trying to mislead The People?

I don't think anyone is jumping to defend Obama, he appointed Geithner didn't he? Seems a little indefensible. Here's why I chimed in (hey, thanks for asking!):

As you said yourself, "Is anyone shocked?" Well anyone who is shocked, shouldn't be, and anyone who claims to be is either feigning outrage, completely oblivious or willfully ignorant. In my opinion it's a bit of the first and a whole heap of the third.

What's really irritating is the fake obsession with the truth as a front for partisan politicking.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan



Interesting how the anti-Obama crowd is generally very pro-Reagan.

Reagan was one of the BEST liars out, Obama is merely a novice compared to the master. Reagan and his cronies committed treason, armed our sworn enemies, funded an illegal war with drugs, and then got the people to praise him for it. Obama, you can't touch this.

originally posted by: rickynews
Why can't the American people simply get the straight truth, and have access to any and all facts on any given topic, and then let the people decide, through their elected government, what we want, or what we support or do not support? Or, what we want done, or not done? Or, How important or unimportant an issue or topic is, or should be?

Is that so much to ask from our elected representation in all branches of government? Including the White House?

Is this a Democratic Party issue? Is this a Republican party issue?
Answer: No, this is an American People issue.

Pffft. Case in point. You're only interested in "the truth" as it applies to your version.

This is exactly what left-wing liberals do...they don't want to look at any facts if the facts counter the (un)-reality of what they want, and what they so desperately want others to believe. Sounds like victims of brain-washing to me.

You could take that exact same statement, change two words and it's descriptive of most of the posters in this thread:

This is exactly what right-wing conservatives do...they don't want to look at any facts if the facts counter the (un)-reality of what they want, and what they so desperately want others to believe. Sounds like victims of brain-washing to me.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

FYI, I do look at both sides. I also have a habit of looking at 'reviews' about websites, and how skewed they are.

But thanks for the reminder.
I spent hours investigating "Fox News", and many other hard right-wing sources, and there are some that are simply to be dismissed and ignored EXCEPT to compare and contrast them to other sources.

I have tried it. Denying willful ignorance is my method.
I read it? Then I fact check it with as many sources as I can find to get to a balance.
FOX "News" merits no respect, in my opinion.
I won't bother to repeat the other sources I immediately dismiss, but suffice it to say there are sources that even ATS has banned from the boards. Anyone who quotes FOX News, the Daily Mail, prisonplanet/infowars, Glenn Beck, Lee Strobel, Rush Limbaugh, or on the other hand the Huffington Post or MSNBC or any clearly propagandist site is, in my opinion, falling for BS.

Have a great day!!

Fox is "hard right-wing"? That says more about you than it does about Fox.

Fox uses a more right perspective to report from just like CNN uses more left perspective. Both report about the same percentage of information in their actual news casts.

Note, I'm not talking about their pundits, but their news. There is a difference.

a reply to: abe froman

funded an illegal war with drugs,

But with Iran-Contra there were Congressional investigations, the Tower Commission and indictments.
Somehow, with all the people using the race card and spinning Obama as having never done anything wrong, I can't see any indictments coming out of any of the current scandals.... even though there should be.

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: abe froman

funded an illegal war with drugs,

But with Iran-Contra there were Congressional investigations, the Tower Commission and indictments.
Somehow, with all the people using the race card and spinning Obama as having never done anything wrong, I can't see any indictments coming out of any of the current scandals.... even though there should be.

The Benghazi "scandal" has had 7 commission reports so far and it's about whether or not the WH briefings emphasized The Innocence of Muslims to downplay the role of Al Qaeda. Here's a real scandal:

Caspar Weinberger, Secretary of Defense, was indicted on two counts of perjury and one count of obstruction of justice on June 16, 1992. [1] Weinberger received a pardon from George H. W. Bush on December 24, 1992, before he was tried.[71]
William Casey, Head of the CIA. Thought to have conceived the plan, was stricken ill hours before he would testify. Reporter Bob Woodward reported Casey knew of and approved the plan.[72]
Robert C. McFarlane, National Security Adviser, convicted of withholding evidence, but after a plea bargain was given only two years of probation. Later pardoned by President George H. W. Bush.[73]
Elliott Abrams, Assistant Secretary of State, convicted of withholding evidence, but after a plea bargain was given only two years probation. Later pardoned by President George H. W. Bush.[74]
Alan D. Fiers, Chief of the CIA's Central American Task Force, convicted of withholding evidence and sentenced to one year probation. Later pardoned by President George H. W. Bush.
Clair George, Chief of Covert Ops-CIA, convicted on two charges of perjury, but pardoned by President George H. W. Bush before sentencing.[75]
Oliver North, member of the National Security Council convicted of accepting an illegal gratuity, obstruction of a congressional inquiry, and destruction of documents, but the ruling was overturned since he had been granted immunity.[76]
Fawn Hall, Oliver North's secretary, was given immunity from prosecution on charges of conspiracy and destroying documents in exchange for her testimony.[77]
Jonathan Scott Royster, Liaison to Oliver North, was given immunity from prosecution on charges of conspiracy and destroying documents in exchange for his testimony.[78]
National Security Advisor John Poindexter was convicted of five counts of conspiracy, obstruction of justice, perjury, defrauding the government, and the alteration and destruction of evidence. The Supreme Court upheld a lower court ruling that overturned these convictions.[79]
Duane Clarridge. An ex-CIA senior official, he was indicted in November 1991 on seven counts of perjury and false statements relating to a November 1985 shipment to Iran. Pardoned before trial by President George H. W. Bush.[80][81]
Richard V. Secord. Ex-major general in the Air Force who organized the Iran arms sales and Contra aid. He pleaded guilty in November 1989 to making false statements to Congress and was sentenced to two years of probation.[82][83]
Albert Hakim. A businessman, he pleaded guilty in November 1989 to supplementing the salary of North by buying a $13,800 fence for North with money from "the Enterprise", which was a set of foreign companies Hakim used in Iran-Contra. In addition, Swiss company Lake Resources Inc., used for storing money from arms sales to Iran to give to the Contras, plead guilty to stealing government property.[84] Hakim was given two years of probation and a $5,000 fine, while Lake Resources Inc. was ordered to dissolve.[82][85]

Everyone was either given immunity or pardoned by H.W. How's that for impropriety? Somehow Reagan just claimed to be senile and got a pass. Isn't Oliver North on Fox News right now? Yeah. Getting to the truth and punishing the guilty is a really big deal with the GOP.

a reply to: buster2010

Uh because what he said was confirmed with the talking points of a bunch of democrats who said that SS didn't add to the deficit, but everyone with a brain knows that it does because we spend more than what's paid in. It's a no brainier.

Youve got to expect responses like these whenever one quotes from the MSM. And besides. We never...since it was built...have been able to "trust" the White House. Thats been a given...theyve always spun things their ways that suits them...for the "good of the country".

a reply to: rickynews

Do you know how to tell when a politician is lying ? His or her mouth is moving and the rest swear its true .