An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
Update #4: Sam Gustin at DailyFinance is reporting that the Secret Service is now investigating Forell's tweets, with Secret Service spokesperson Max Milien stating: “We are aware of the actual posting and are actively investigating.”
Dog bites man. I don't understand why this is considered newsy. There is nothing new here, no matter who is President. The only difference, possibly, is the accessibility of social media by lone obsessives who used to have no way of publicizing their manias.
At least there hasn't been a movie made depicting the assassination of Obama, as there was about GWB in 2006. “The Death of a President” featured doctored images of GWB being assassinated, and was shown at the Toronto Film Festival: http://www.contactmusic.com/news.nsf/story/cost…
By Kevin Sullivan Washington Post Foreign Service Saturday, September 2, 2006 LONDON, Sept. 1 — Nearly every British newspaper on Friday carried photos of the “assassination” of President Bush — or, rather, the eerily realistic depiction of it from a new documentary-style television film that is causing an uproar in Britain.
Good that they are investigating it. Inciting assassination, like shouting fire in a crowded theater, is clearly not protected speech and it's indefensible as a political statement.
That is not even the worst. A self-professed “conservative blogger” named Solomon “Solly” Forell, with several anti-Obama sites, posted a Tweet calling for President Obama to be assassinated. After his obligatory denunciations of “liberals” for “whining” about “harming” our, I am a proud Liberal and prouder American, “emperor”, this vile creature called for civility.
In my hometown, the Local Right Wing Talk Radio Host, and is there any Talk Show Host who is not Right Wing?, pointed out that we now have “no freedom” and “live under a socialist dictatorship” and his daughter will lose her Health Insurance coverage pf her pre-existing asthma condition.
The shortages have already begun in Right Wing Bizarro World. Way too many people in this country live in a fact-free hate & fear fueled fantasy land.
In reading through the post and the comments the one positive is a number of people have turned the person into Twitter and Special Service. Maybe the internet is starting to grow up when users take the time to citizen report ones like this. . . .
Robert Reich falsely claimed health insurance companies are exhibiting huge profits: “That is money directly out of the pockets of Americans.”
Will countered, “[C]onfiscate all the profits of all the health insurance companies, with those profits you could finance our healthcare for 48 hours.”
Saturday: Tea Partiers (i.e. Grandma) avail themselves of First Amendment rights while failing to physically attack John Lewis and friends; while failing to attempt physical intimidation of John Lewis and friends. And, oh yeah, while also failing to hurl racial insults: 1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fdaPZx1cpU 2) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-SCs6pSE8_I&feat…
One of Lewis' group is recording everything on a camera. If Lewis and friends ran into actual (planted?) bigots, he probably has it on his video. Release the tape! Shame the alleged bigots! If the bigots exist – whoever they are and wherever they come from – this is a prime opportunity to put public shaming into action. Shaming them would amount to good citizenship.
It was all over Britain because it was a British film, written and directed as well as funded by Britain.
Also the plot of the movie shows how Bush becomes a martyr and it is actually a film about why you NEVER try to assassinate your enemy, it only strengthens their arguments and beliefs. I am assuming you were trying to attribute the film to the US left but you are pretty wide of the mark though it is a mistake I have seen regurgitated over and over again since 2006. It does make sense if you have not seen the film but if you have it has little to nothing to do with Bush in fact most of the film involves people talking about how wonderful he was, if anything it was a pro-Bush film though in reality it was just an anti-assassination film. Kinda funny if you think about it though, during the Bush era we have a film saying not to assassinate him and during the Obama era we have a long drip of requests for assassination and coups and those are supposed to be equivalent.
A video of Lewis complete walk on Saturday, up until he is 10 steps from the doorway of the Capitol. Doesn't prove Lewis a liar, but does show the crowd to be exercising their First Amendment rights while refusing to physically impede or physically intimidate Lewis and associates. Therefore, I find Lewis' statement, i.e. That crowd can't intimidate me, to be disingenuous. Lewis' walk begins at the 3:00 mark. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uiMFcoTzk2A
I knew the movie was from England, as demonstrated in the quote I included from WaPo. However, having not seen the movie, I appreciate your first hand report.
Do you really believe Barack is being treated in an “inequivalent” fashion vis a vis GWB? I remember Clinton receiving tremendous criticism and heat. I remember the Clinton years were a good time for Hollywood to unleash President Harrison Ford to heroically fight terrorists and save lives aboard Air Force One; were a good time for Hollywood to slide President Bill Pullman into the cockpit of a fighter jet and unleash him against alien invaders; were a good time for VP Glenn Close to heroically stand up against the hated Repub Richard Dreyfuss (and in time to send a message for the 2000 Election); was a good time for Hollywood to create a “West Wing” show which West Wing writer Peggy Noonan described as “onanistic fantasy for liberals”. I recall “Bush lied”, “Chimpy McHalliburton”, “BushHitler”, and 15 anti-War-on-Terror movies – everyone of which – one after another after another – contributed to an unbroken string of DISASTROUS box office – including the latest: “Green Zone”. Every POTUS has a rough time – especially in an age of cable TV and internet. Why should Barack's experience be different?
So we need to pick a zone of media to discuss at a time because you seem to put it all into a single pot like one person or great cabal is pulling all of the levers when that is of course not reality.
First how was Clinton treated in his first year? Like trash which is why the GOP took over in 94, how was W. treated in his first year, like gold which is why he had a nice swing of GOP seats in 01. Now W. is a bit of a complicated story due to 911 much as Obama is likely to after HCR. How did the media react to H.W.? Actually really calmly though they did attack Reagan in his early years as they attacked Clinton and as they are now attacking Obama, I think that is getting ready to change though I could be wrong.
Films on the other hand are a bit more difficult, the 80's and before can be somewhat blamed on “hollywood” but that is due to a lack of an indie film industry that of course got fully up and running in the late 80's early 90's. You brought up many positive portrayals during the Clinton years but what about Wag The Dog which people still say was a knock on Clinton for trying to silence critics of his sex life by starting a bombing campaign. You also forget that the 90's were the era of “sleazy pols and broken gov” in films, for examples see most of Tarantino's early work, The Professional or any film discussing the CIA or DEA. So if we do blame every media outlet for how it portrays presidents in all of the media without allowing our tin foil hat to get in the way we still have to find a way to make BBC Films part of “hollywood” to make that idea float.
I do highly suggest watching the movie though, its pretty good and the plot is pretty well thought out though it is almost the opposite of what it was advertised as. Personally two movies many conservatives missed during the Bush era that I thought were missed in error was The Confederate States Of America and Death Of A President, if you have to choose one choose Confederate States but they are both worth the two hours of your life and were both heavily maligned due to misunderstanding what their messages were.
All good points and enjoyable reading – I'm a movie fan. One thing I can clear up: people said Clinton wagged the dog b/c he launched missiles when he was to testify before the Grand Jury in Aug 2008, then he launched missiles during House Impeachment proceedings in Dec 2008. However, at the time, no one said the movie was based on Clinton, b/c the movie had been released in Jan 2008.
Is it your contention that Repubs and media are harder on Barack than Dems and media would be on a Repub POTUS? And why would that be? Is your point that Repubs, to a greater extent than Dems, are motivated more by partisanship and less by principle and statesmanship? If this is your point, I shall not defend, as I cannot prove a negative. Lets just declare Repubs guilty and move on.
Your conversation about first year heat on a POTUS was interesting, yet heat on a POTUS obviously must be measured according to actions and circumstances. Which means, probably, imo, precise comparison of the fairness of the heat directed at various POTUS is, at minimum, difficult to compare.
For example: in his first 6 months, GWB lowered taxes. Even people who ostensibly favor higher taxes do not become too exercised over lower taxes. GWB joined with Ted Kennedy to pass an education bill by large margins in both houses. Whaddaya gonna do? I didn't like the education bill, but both parties worked together on it, so how much am I going to complain? Barack's first 6 months were not been so modestly uneventful: Barack was busy emphasizing and capitalizing on a crisis. Barack's proposed spending is unprecedented times 3. Barack's actions, irregardless of their correctness or incorrectness, could not help but stir up strong and immediate response.
Not sure what the purpose of your replies to me were since neither had any connection to what I was saying. I trust you enjoyed your commentary in any case.
That is indeed surely It. People really need to back up a step or ten and get themselves under control.
Yup, Waaaay over the line. No matter how awful one thinks the current leadership is, there is no excuse for this.
This sort of thing is no joke. I assume the sicko is being investigated by now.
Shameful, no ifs, and, or buts about it
Dog bites man. I don't understand why this is considered newsy. There is nothing new here, no matter who is President. The only difference, possibly, is the accessibility of social media by lone obsessives who used to have no way of publicizing their manias.
At least there hasn't been a movie made depicting the assassination of Obama, as there was about GWB in 2006. “The Death of a President” featured doctored images of GWB being assassinated, and was shown at the Toronto Film Festival: http://www.contactmusic.com/news.nsf/story/cost…
WaPo:
Good that they are investigating it. Inciting assassination, like shouting fire in a crowded theater, is clearly not protected speech and it's indefensible as a political statement.
That is not even the worst. A self-professed “conservative blogger” named Solomon “Solly” Forell, with several anti-Obama sites, posted a Tweet calling for President Obama to be assassinated. After his obligatory denunciations of “liberals” for “whining” about “harming” our, I am a proud Liberal and prouder American, “emperor”, this vile creature called for civility.
In my hometown, the Local Right Wing Talk Radio Host, and is there any Talk Show Host who is not Right Wing?, pointed out that we now have “no freedom” and “live under a socialist dictatorship” and his daughter will lose her Health Insurance coverage pf her pre-existing asthma condition.
The shortages have already begun in Right Wing Bizarro World. Way too many people in this country live in a fact-free hate & fear fueled fantasy land.
I find it disgusting.
Dog bites man. I don't understand why this is considered newsy.
I tend to agree. Yes it's over the top. It's also one in a very long line of “conservative says something stupid, TMV contributor shocked” posts.
In reading through the post and the comments the one positive is a number of people have turned the person into Twitter and Special Service. Maybe the internet is starting to grow up when users take the time to citizen report ones like this. . . .
Yup, even worse are those who, in the quest for money and power, encourage that hate and paranoia
I agree: demonizing insurance companies and “Big Pharma” does encourage hate and paranoia. Demonizing Tea Partiers does encourage hate and paranoia.
Newsbusters:
Saturday: Tea Partiers (i.e. Grandma) avail themselves of First Amendment rights while failing to physically attack John Lewis and friends; while failing to attempt physical intimidation of John Lewis and friends. And, oh yeah, while also failing to hurl racial insults:
1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fdaPZx1cpU
2) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-SCs6pSE8_I&feat…
One of Lewis' group is recording everything on a camera. If Lewis and friends ran into actual (planted?) bigots, he probably has it on his video. Release the tape! Shame the alleged bigots! If the bigots exist – whoever they are and wherever they come from – this is a prime opportunity to put public shaming into action. Shaming them would amount to good citizenship.
It was all over Britain because it was a British film, written and directed as well as funded by Britain.
Also the plot of the movie shows how Bush becomes a martyr and it is actually a film about why you NEVER try to assassinate your enemy, it only strengthens their arguments and beliefs. I am assuming you were trying to attribute the film to the US left but you are pretty wide of the mark though it is a mistake I have seen regurgitated over and over again since 2006. It does make sense if you have not seen the film but if you have it has little to nothing to do with Bush in fact most of the film involves people talking about how wonderful he was, if anything it was a pro-Bush film though in reality it was just an anti-assassination film. Kinda funny if you think about it though, during the Bush era we have a film saying not to assassinate him and during the Obama era we have a long drip of requests for assassination and coups and those are supposed to be equivalent.
A video of Lewis complete walk on Saturday, up until he is 10 steps from the doorway of the Capitol. Doesn't prove Lewis a liar, but does show the crowd to be exercising their First Amendment rights while refusing to physically impede or physically intimidate Lewis and associates. Therefore, I find Lewis' statement, i.e. That crowd can't intimidate me, to be disingenuous. Lewis' walk begins at the 3:00 mark. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uiMFcoTzk2A
I knew the movie was from England, as demonstrated in the quote I included from WaPo. However, having not seen the movie, I appreciate your first hand report.
Do you really believe Barack is being treated in an “inequivalent” fashion vis a vis GWB? I remember Clinton receiving tremendous criticism and heat. I remember the Clinton years were a good time for Hollywood to unleash President Harrison Ford to heroically fight terrorists and save lives aboard Air Force One; were a good time for Hollywood to slide President Bill Pullman into the cockpit of a fighter jet and unleash him against alien invaders; were a good time for VP Glenn Close to heroically stand up against the hated Repub Richard Dreyfuss (and in time to send a message for the 2000 Election); was a good time for Hollywood to create a “West Wing” show which West Wing writer Peggy Noonan described as “onanistic fantasy for liberals”. I recall “Bush lied”, “Chimpy McHalliburton”, “BushHitler”, and 15 anti-War-on-Terror movies – everyone of which – one after another after another – contributed to an unbroken string of DISASTROUS box office – including the latest: “Green Zone”. Every POTUS has a rough time – especially in an age of cable TV and internet. Why should Barack's experience be different?
Not Glenn Close. Rather, Joan Allen, in “The Contender”, released in Oct 2000, juuuust in time to exalt Vice Presidents before the Nov 2000 Election.
So we need to pick a zone of media to discuss at a time because you seem to put it all into a single pot like one person or great cabal is pulling all of the levers when that is of course not reality.
First how was Clinton treated in his first year? Like trash which is why the GOP took over in 94, how was W. treated in his first year, like gold which is why he had a nice swing of GOP seats in 01. Now W. is a bit of a complicated story due to 911 much as Obama is likely to after HCR. How did the media react to H.W.? Actually really calmly though they did attack Reagan in his early years as they attacked Clinton and as they are now attacking Obama, I think that is getting ready to change though I could be wrong.
Films on the other hand are a bit more difficult, the 80's and before can be somewhat blamed on “hollywood” but that is due to a lack of an indie film industry that of course got fully up and running in the late 80's early 90's. You brought up many positive portrayals during the Clinton years but what about Wag The Dog which people still say was a knock on Clinton for trying to silence critics of his sex life by starting a bombing campaign. You also forget that the 90's were the era of “sleazy pols and broken gov” in films, for examples see most of Tarantino's early work, The Professional or any film discussing the CIA or DEA. So if we do blame every media outlet for how it portrays presidents in all of the media without allowing our tin foil hat to get in the way we still have to find a way to make BBC Films part of “hollywood” to make that idea float.
I do highly suggest watching the movie though, its pretty good and the plot is pretty well thought out though it is almost the opposite of what it was advertised as. Personally two movies many conservatives missed during the Bush era that I thought were missed in error was The Confederate States Of America and Death Of A President, if you have to choose one choose Confederate States but they are both worth the two hours of your life and were both heavily maligned due to misunderstanding what their messages were.
All good points and enjoyable reading – I'm a movie fan. One thing I can clear up: people said Clinton wagged the dog b/c he launched missiles when he was to testify before the Grand Jury in Aug 2008, then he launched missiles during House Impeachment proceedings in Dec 2008. However, at the time, no one said the movie was based on Clinton, b/c the movie had been released in Jan 2008.
Is it your contention that Repubs and media are harder on Barack than Dems and media would be on a Repub POTUS? And why would that be? Is your point that Repubs, to a greater extent than Dems, are motivated more by partisanship and less by principle and statesmanship? If this is your point, I shall not defend, as I cannot prove a negative. Lets just declare Repubs guilty and move on.
Your conversation about first year heat on a POTUS was interesting, yet heat on a POTUS obviously must be measured according to actions and circumstances. Which means, probably, imo, precise comparison of the fairness of the heat directed at various POTUS is, at minimum, difficult to compare.
For example: in his first 6 months, GWB lowered taxes. Even people who ostensibly favor higher taxes do not become too exercised over lower taxes. GWB joined with Ted Kennedy to pass an education bill by large margins in both houses. Whaddaya gonna do? I didn't like the education bill, but both parties worked together on it, so how much am I going to complain? Barack's first 6 months were not been so modestly uneventful: Barack was busy emphasizing and capitalizing on a crisis. Barack's proposed spending is unprecedented times 3. Barack's actions, irregardless of their correctness or incorrectness, could not help but stir up strong and immediate response.
Not sure what the purpose of your replies to me were since neither had any connection to what I was saying. I trust you enjoyed your commentary in any case.