Hatewatch Tweets
Hatewatch is managed by the staff of the Intelligence Report, an investigative magazine published by the Alabama-based civil rights group Southern Poverty Law Center.
Earth to Lou: It Could Have Been Different
It didn’t have to end this way for Lou Dobbs. He could have been a contender.
But Dobbs, a supremely self-confident man who often mentions his Harvard education in private conversation, just wouldn’t listen. Time after time, as the “Lou Dobbs Tonight” show he has hosted on CNN since 2003 grew more rabidly critical of undocumented immigrants, he was warned of the kind of people he was putting on his show. He was told that many of the “facts” he was presenting just weren’t so. At first, he was gently called out for his defamations of Latino immigrants, then, as his tone grew sharper still, he was subjected to all kinds of public criticism from human rights groups, the journalism trade press, even a leading New York Times financial columnist. Instead of righting his course, or even slightly moderating his tone, Dobbs called his critics “commies” and “fascists.” He fudged facts, defended earlier falsehoods, and promoted racist conspiracy theories. He fumed.
It all ended last night, when Dobbs announced on his program that he was resigning from CNN effective immediately. In a moment of supreme irony, he complained that public political debate was now overtaken with “partisanship and ideology,” and promised to use “the most honest and direct language possible” in whatever future role he plays in public life. For once, he did not attack his critics.
My colleagues at the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and I were some of those critics, and early ones at that. I began speaking to Lou Dobbs in 2004, not many months after he started airing virtually nightly segments entitled “Broken Borders.” By that time, he had already run “reports” complaining about “illegal aliens” getting free medical care, educating their children in public schools, committing sex crimes, getting breaks on college tuition, filling the prisons and spreading diseases.
To my surprise, Dobbs answered my very first call immediately. He was interested in what I had to say, he said, and responded to my warning that an upcoming guest had ties to white supremacy by canceling the appearance. He asked that I keep him apprised of any similar situations. He said he was all in favor of multiculturalism.
That kind of back-and-forth culminated in Dobbs sending a five-person team from his show to the Montgomery, Ala., headquarters of the SPLC, in November 2004, after we contacted Dobbs about a guest who promoted the “Aztlan” conspiracy theory alleging a Mexican plot to “reconquer” the American Southwest. After much of our staff and I spent most of the day briefing Dobbs’ people, they left saying that Dobbs planned a three-part series on extremism in America, and another on racism within the immigration restriction movement. And for a short time, Dobbs seemed open to hearing our criticisms and warnings. But that all came to end on his July 29, 2005, show, when he erupted over an SPLC report exposing racist elements in the Minuteman vigilante movement. Dobbs called us “despicable” and “reprehensible,” although he did not dispute any of the facts we reported.
From there, things went south. That winter, we ran a story detailing members of extremist groups who Dobbs had put on his show. A few months later, we pointed out that in discussing the Aztlan conspiracy on the air, Dobbs used a map of the area Mexico supposedly coveted, explicitly attributed to the Council of Conservative Citizens — a group that has described black people as “a retrograde species of humanity.” Then, on March 6, 2007, I was quoted on NPR saying that Dobbs was helping to mainstream conspiracy theories and propaganda that originated in white supremacist hate groups. Enraged, Dobbs called me a few days later to say that the SPLC and I had no integrity, and that, henceforth, we would be “adversaries.” A couple of weeks later, I went on Dobbs’ show to point out that Chris Simcox — the original founder of the Minuteman movement and a guest Dobbs had had on his air at least 17 times at that point — had told his followers that he had personally seen Chinese Red Army troops maneuvering on the U.S./Mexican border in preparation for an invasion. Dobbs seemed to find that funny, but he didn’t repudiate Simcox.
Then, on May 6, 2007, I was quoted in a “60 Minutes” profile of Dobbs. CBS’ Lesley Stahl pointed out in the piece that Dobbs had claimed in 2005 that “an invasion of illegal aliens” was “threatening the health of many Americans” and followed that up with a report claiming that 7,000 new cases of leprosy had been identified in America in the prior three years. (The truth is that there were about 400 new cases in the years in question, that leprosy is now an easily treatable disease, and that no one knew what role immigrants may have had in any leprosy case.) I criticized Dobbs’ “journalism” in the piece, which sent Dobbs into a rage the next day on his own CNN show. He said he stood “100%” behind his bogus report, and he had his reporter re-identify the source of her allegations — a right-wing fanatic named Madeleine Cosman, who the SPLC had earlier documented telling an audience that “most” Latino immigrant men “molest girls under 12, although some specialize in boys and some in nuns.” Cosman had no expertise in immigration or medicine.
The last time I was on Dobbs’ show was on May 16 of that year, along with my boss, SPLC President Richard Cohen. (Our appearance followed by a day the printing of SPLC ads in The New York Times and USA Today calling on CNN President Jonathan Klein to retract Dobbs’ false leprosy claim, as Dobbs himself refused to do so.) Our interview was preceded by a setup piece containing a completely new set of claims about leprosy. Now, Dobbs claimed that new cases of leprosy had “risen” to 166 in 2005. Nothing was said about the supposed 7,000 cases, and Dobbs never conceded any error at all. The mail we got after the show from Dobbs’ supporters was memorable. “You people disgust me and I hope you burn in Hell,” wrote one. “In memory of your appearance on Lou Dobbs, I will make a GENEROUS donation to a well known hate group in YOUR NAME.” Another put it like this: “You can shove tolerance up your ass as far as possible. Hate is alive and growing!” And a third wrote to regret that cowboy days were over, otherwise “you and your associates would be hanging by a rope.”
We fared a little better with The New York Times, where David Leonhardt wrote a long column concluding that “Mr. Dobbs has a somewhat flexible relationship with reality.” Around the same time, the Columbia Journalism Review wrote that Dobbs was “tamper[ing] with facts” and “pretending the confusion was someone else’s fault.” Dobbs’ response to all of this was to attack SPLC and the Times, informing his CNN audience that he would tell them “who’s really telling the truth and who the commies are and who the fascists are who have the temerity to attack me.”
In the years since, SPLC has regularly written about Dobbs, documenting the real truth about his various claims and pointing out his role in poisoning the debate about immigration in the United States. Our point was never to stop a robust debate about immigration — quite the contrary, we were all in favor of such a debate, but felt that it should be based on facts, not racist propaganda or conspiracy theories. Finally, in late July of this year, after Dobbs seemed to suggest that President Obama was not a U.S. citizen, SPLC President Cohen wrote CNN’s Jonathan Klein to ask that Dobbs be fired. “Respectable news organizations should not employ reporters willing to peddle racist conspiracy theories and false propaganda,” Cohen wrote. “It’s time for CNN to remove Mr. Dobbs from the airwaves.” The letter set off a chorus of similar demands from other human rights groups, and a movement by many of them to press that demand grew quickly. It concluded yesterday with Dobbs’ departure.
Did it have to happen this way? Obviously not. But Dobbs never could hear anyone whose opinions varied from his own. When he was confronted by Stahl in the “60 Minutes” piece about his leprosy error, Dobbs’ response was typical. “Well, I can tell you this,” he told Stahl. “If we reported it, it’s a fact.”
Stahl replied, “You can’t tell me that. You did report it.”
Dobbs: “Well, no, I just did.”
Stahl: “How can you guarantee that to me?”
And then, this gem from Dobbs: “Because I’m the managing editor, and that’s the way we do business. We don’t make up numbers, Lesley, do we?”
As it turns out, he did. No longer, however, at CNN, “The Most Trusted in Name in News.” Not any more. But it didn’t have to be this way.
on November 12th, 2009 at 3:54 pm
I for one thank Dobbs. By shutting his mouth, he will contribute greatly toward reducing global warming.
on November 12th, 2009 at 4:44 pm
Don’t worry-he’ll resurface on the FOX “News” Channel real soon, maybe in a time slot right after his old pal (and other CNN reject) Glenn Beck.
on November 12th, 2009 at 4:48 pm
Because he was on CNN, I originally thought that Lou Dobbs was a reporter. But the more he ranted about the lack of a border and illegal immigrants, the more disgusted I became. Good riddance!
on November 12th, 2009 at 5:34 pm
Well done http://www.presente.org and thank you to all the Hispanic American advocacy groups who petitioned for CNN to take this disgusting man off the American media airways!! Bravo!! Thank you SPLC for documenting every event, appearance, show on dobbs these past years and exposing the lies and incitation of hatred that this despicable man has caused. It’s time to go after Fox News – oh wait, we already are :D
on November 12th, 2009 at 5:46 pm
I wonder if Dobbs and others of his ilk understand the damage they’ve done to the media. I for one no longer place any credibility in the information I get from any of the cable news sources. Somewhere along the way, we’ve lost track of the original vision of broadcast journalism as something that made use of the public airwaves, a natural monopoly, and responsible to its public. That all fell by the wayside with the cable companies. Decent journalism is now rare, having been supplanted by ideologues who don’t blanch at purveying their personal agendas.
on November 12th, 2009 at 6:09 pm
It’s very sad that peopple can no longer say what they think in this country. Its even more sad that the SPLC has sold its soul to the left.
on November 12th, 2009 at 6:18 pm
Dobbs is surely one of those men who cannot stand any kind of facts that are different from what he already believes about the world and society. That definitely defines a person with a prejudiced viewpoint.
The conversation between Dobbs and Lesley Stahl was interesting. He seemed to be insinuating that discussing or admitting his errors and the fallout from them could be dangerous because they reflected on the whole network rather than on him.
on November 12th, 2009 at 6:46 pm
Congrats on yet another attack on free speech. If only you could get that pesky first amendment tossed out the window completely.
on November 12th, 2009 at 7:37 pm
It’s an old story and one that wingnuts seem to have difficulty understanding. Speech is free but it is never free from consequence. Dobbs wasn’t hounded because he spoke an unpopular truth, he was hounded because he knowingly spread distortions, innuendos and outright lies, something that made him popular with the right. So, I will leave Lou with three little letters:
AMF
on November 12th, 2009 at 8:31 pm
So Dobbs graduated from Harvard… Then I suggest we sue Harvard for allowing that to happen. What a blight on humanity that man is.
on November 12th, 2009 at 9:14 pm
Typical liberals. If you don’t like what someone says, you either defame then, or sue them. Liberals impose a double-standard enforced by convoluted interpretations of the constitution, backed by greasy lawyers in Congress, and in the private sector. The media projects this double standard into the public eye. Look at Larry King’s treatment of Ms. Prejean recently. This was a woman who was demonized for having a differing opinion. Look at MSNBC and the antics of Chris Matthews. He regularly insults conservatives. Neither the conservative or liberal talking heads are better than the other, however, to the regular rank-and-file folks, the liberals seem to be really out of touch. When considering the SPLC, it gives one the chilling thought that if folks don’t agree with what the SPLC believes in, they too, can end up on a hate map and have their lives ruined.
Personally, I hope the SPLC keeps it up. Maybe they’ll cross the wrong guy’s path and end up being delivered a “crushing” judgement in a courtroom.
Trust me, there’ll be more people cheering for that than crying …
on November 12th, 2009 at 9:20 pm
By the way, has anything Dobbs said been factually proven to be a lie? What about Fox News?
Why hasn’t the SPLC tried to sue Fox News yet? What about Lou Dobbs? Oh, that would just be too blatant of a demonstration of the SPLC’s true intentions. I see the SPLC as part of the radical left. They destroy the lives of those who do not see eye to eye with them either by lawsuit, or by inclusion in their publications. I have never seen a conservative organization try to destroy another group.
Might be because most lawyers are liberals? :D
on November 12th, 2009 at 9:28 pm
Buh-Bai.
We can haz *ahem*
Can we please have a -real- reporter take his place?
on November 12th, 2009 at 11:13 pm
Dobbs was a great man. He will be around for a while yet….. you folk will still have something to hate!!!
on November 13th, 2009 at 6:33 am
I am glad to see him go. He spewed hatred not facts.
on November 13th, 2009 at 8:56 am
It is unfortunate that extremists happen to also be
against illegal immigration , along with those interested in secure borders and vetted immigrants, such as Lou Dobbs and myself , who hate nobody and have no problem whatsoever with Latino immigration – LEGALLY.
All my neighbors are my friends and are Hispanic and are the best.
There is zero correlation between racism and a position against illegal immigration.
If Dobbs has a guest you vet as an extremist , by all means do so – but dont correlate him with Dobbs any further than the illegal immigration related content conveyed.
I’m sure that you’d found some inaccurate facts presented by Dobbs and some guests, and it is unfortunate if he did not correct those facts clearly , but your own initial contacts with him portrayed his intent to cooperate , and I guess he flew off the handle when you overdid it – I’ve read your material and the responses of your supporters , and have contacted you several times pointing out that while your theoretical mission is admirable , you muddle it with partisanship rendering yourselves
too biased to be considered neutral or fair.
If I came to that conclusion , I guess so did Dobbs.
An example of that is in this article -
HOW DARE you call Dobbs a racist for questioning Obama’s citizenship.
I do not support Obama on policy grounds , but was nonetheless proud to see a Black President – as I was to see a Black Sec. of State , and Supreme Court Justice.
It is a testament to how this country , sometimes slowly , rights wrongs and progresses.
But when I studied the citizenship issue , I was outraged – McCain’s Presidential eligibility was vetted because he was born
on a Panamanian military base , with that vetting complied with and causing no furor , but Obama is not required to similarly be vetted , as there is some unclear conflicting information? -
AND YOUR POSITION IS THAT ANYBODY WHO SUPPORTS THAT EVIDENCE BE RELEASED TO CLEAR THIS UP IS A RACIST?
So , I’m a racist?
You have started a worthy endeavor and morphed it into a biased rag.
Who is financially behind you?
on November 13th, 2009 at 9:18 am
I don’t get all this ranting and raving over immigrants. We are a nation of Immigrants. What ever happened to “Give us your tired, your hungry, your people yearning to be free….”
Sorry, I know I didn’t get that exactly right but you know what I mean.
I’m glad Lou Dobbs is gone. He was a joke. A bad joke!
on November 13th, 2009 at 9:26 am
lou was a model for real americans .he did not spew hatred just truth especially the reports on joe arpaio. what is joe the next target for this zionist country to try and stop him from doing his job? one day we will have no freedom of speech so no one will be allowed to speak thar mind. carrie& tim good post.
on November 13th, 2009 at 9:46 am
Tim, if you had bothered to do your homework, you would have seen that Dobbs continually spread false information, was called to task for it, and instead of admitting his mistakes and moving on, instead decided to resort to the usual conservatives tactics of whining, pouting, and claiming to be persecuted. The last example I can personally give you was when Dobbs began airing “Birther propaganda”. On Dobbs’ own network, on his own show(when someone was filling in for him), the evidence supporting the genuine nature of Obama’s certificate was presented. About a day later, Dobbs went on the air and said that there were many “questions about Obama’s birth certificate” which “haven’t been answered.” They were answered of course, on HIS OWN SHOW.
Free speech is not an issue here for two reasons, which makes it ironic how you accuse “liberals” of having twisted interpretations of the Constitution.
First- Dobbs left of his own accord. By his own words it is clear that he no longer wants to be hindered by the need to pose as a journalist, someone who should deal with facts.
Second, and far more important- The First Amendment does NOT apply to private corporations and businesses. If one signs a contract with a media entity, it is perfectly legal for them to control the content that is produced on their means of production; that is the studios, airwaves, etc. This is a moot point because clearly CNN wasn’t controlling Dobbs, since he left on his own. But had there been any pressure, it would have been from groups of consumers pressuring the company. If you don’t like a company pressuring its personalities due to consumer demands and complaints, then your beef is with the capitalist free market system, and not the SPLC.
Lastly, Dobbs is lucky he wasn’t fired, and had he been it would have been justified on the basis of job performance. On paper at least, a journalist is supposed to report facts, and correct any mistakes that are found. Dobbs repeatedly demonstrated that he was not concerned with facts, yet was not punished. This behavior led to massive consumer dissatisfaction, which is another work performance issue.
on November 13th, 2009 at 10:15 am
Fox will be a congenial home for Lou. Finally he’ll be in a place where the patients are running the asylum.
on November 13th, 2009 at 10:29 am
Ruslan,
If you read my post, my primary point of concern is how conservatives are demonized by an organization that preaches tolerance. You seemed to miss the point on that one. Not at any point did I mention the First Amendment, or even question whether Dobbs left of his own accord. I knew that. My beef with the SPLC is that for as much as it preaches tolerance, it is guilty of the same principles it claims to fight.
I am not saying that Lou Dobbs was any more of a beacon of truth than the other “journalists” that are out there. Personally, I find it very difficult to find a truly unbiased news organization that is within our own country, speaking our own language.
What I was trying to point out is the rabid response of the left to anything any conservative says. While there is misinformation on both sides, if you tally everything up, I am sure that “truth” ratio is probably about the same. Can you prove that the liberal members of the media are completely honest? Probably not. But, the misinformation put out by Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann are the gospel since it advances your agenda?
on November 13th, 2009 at 10:49 am
“what is joe the next target for this zionist country ”
Roger , a statement like that negates your support for Dobbs and Arpaio.
There is no room for ANY ethnic targeted hate , so you share a politicized , agendized status along with this publication.
“the evidence supporting the genuine nature of Obama’s certificate was presented.”
Ruslan , the only document to my knowledge authentisized was the “Certificate Of Birth” issued by Hawaii , and not the requested document..
The request is for the original Birth Certificate to be presented , which has been refused despite its being made public an issue ending event?
The issue has nothinmg to do with race , just a reasonable certainty of verification.
on November 13th, 2009 at 10:59 am
“I don’t get all this ranting and raving over immigrants. We are a nation of Immigrants.”
Vicky , all the immigrants you refer to came here legally , and were vetted.
I mean no disparagement to the many illegals who are good people , but why should just anyone – criminals , drug dealers , potentially contagious sick
people , undesirables terrorists – why should just ANYONE , in any numbers , be allowed unvetted entry into this country?
I agree immigration is a good thing and approve of it for all ethnic backrounds , but legally as before and under our auspices and control both qualitywise and numerically – and legal applications by those waiting
prioritized , not anyone just tip toeing in.
That’s why Dobbs does matter , imperfections aside ,
and is a brave guy to speak out per my points , and no joke.
on November 13th, 2009 at 12:11 pm
I disagree. It did have to be this way (Dobbs separating from CNN).
Dobbs lied; he got called on it and the issue became a “rock & a hard place” situation. Neither perspective was going to move an inch.
There are many lessons here. This man Dobbs will most likely become much MORE invested in his views, as will his supporters. Those who refuse to see a big picture in this will continue as well. Many things were accomplished here; perhaps not all of them positive.
on November 13th, 2009 at 5:41 pm
It is disappointing that such a large proportion of citizens in our supposed free society have such a poor understanding of the function, role and responsibilities of a free press.
The concept of “free” press constitutionally reflected the concern and experience of those at that time with government interference in availability of information to the public. But, what they did not foresee was the growth and power of corporate interests and how that would influence public discourse.
The mainstream press has gone the way of sensationalism for some time, sacrificing proper research,, vetting and restraint for the quick story to garner ratings, the fantastical “deep throat” unaccounted “sources” and thus the eroding of the reporting of truth to the public. Unforunately most people have not bothered to care or notice or possibly have even preferred the way the press has chosen to approach reporting news.
Thus, over the years, people like Lou Dobbs have been able to grow and develop. If the hatred and desire to believe the lies that Dobbs and Fox and many smaller organizations and lesser known reporters state, none of these people would have grown to such an extent.
Thankfully, CNN cares for more their journalistic integrity than garnering high ratings, especially when those ratings risk discrediting any of their real reporting work.
Unfortunately, Dobbs, Fox News, many print and internet news organizations continually threaten the peace, safety and prosperity of our democracy with their sectionalist lies and underhanded incitements to the most base and cruel nature of humankind in the name of personal or corporate profit.
Our democracy is threatened, not the constitution. The constitution means nothing when people fail to understand what it means and thus cannot distinguish between grandstanding for personal profit and true patriotism and responsible truth telling.
That SPLC and the others who joined them in pressuring CNN to dump Dobbs were successful gives me hope that our democracy may be salvageable afterall.
And…to the commenter above who asked who finances the SPLC — I will answer — responsible and intelligent citizens and patriots do, that’s who.
on November 13th, 2009 at 6:03 pm
“Fox will be a congenial home for Lou. Finally he’ll be in a place where the patients are running the asylum.”
Bob , it always amazes me when I hear people talk in that vein about Fox.
Granted my views tend towards theirs , but I hope I am objective enough to be correct in stating that anyone watching Fox will undoubtedly hear opposing views voiced by major proponents of them.
It is this which has catapulted Fox ahead of the others by miles , not their house views.
It would be impossible to watch Olbermann and get the diverse viewpoints and heated but healthy arguments Fox always presents.
In this case , I ASSURE you that if Dobbs moves to Fox , his most vehement critics , possibly principles of this site , will be heard in conjunction with Dobbs’ views.
My posts and contacts have been very critical of this site , and so despite my strong disagreements with positions and politics here ,
it would be fair to point out that , as with Fox , I have been allowed to speak , uncensured or muffled.
Go try that with Olbermann.
on November 13th, 2009 at 6:24 pm
“That SPLC and the others who joined them in pressuring CNN to dump Dobbs were successful gives me hope that our democracy may be salvageable afterall.”
Kate , I’m sorry but I cant help but to find your thinking comical -
The only way we can salvage democracy is to
remove the proponents who’s views we disagree with.
Do you realize what , with a serious bent , you are saying?
That’s the exact opposite of how you salvage a democracy.
Obama is hot on Fox – maybe we can remove them next in the furtherance of democracy?
Then , instead of hearing Fox’s house opinions ALONG WITH opposing views – if you’ve ever really watched -
We can listen to Olbermann , where all we will hear are his lies and stupidity , along with his yes man guests.
Then we will truly be on the road to democracy.
I H-A-T-E Olbermann.
But I would never lobby for his removal.
Dobbs has major issue views many agree with.
Both sides always accuse the other of lying -
Did Obama debate Hillary on healthcare with the main difference between them her insisting on mandatory coverage , he insisting not?
He won – and now you get fined – or go to jail(?) if you dont get mandatory coverage?
I could go on and on with similar examples -
He can remain President , but Dobbs “should” get kicked out , for “the advancement of democracy”?
It is not fact checking driving your and others agenda – it is disagreement with overall policy.
Similar fact errors , which pop up all over the spectrum , + Dobbs taking your position , would =
“good guy , keep him on board “.
on November 13th, 2009 at 6:52 pm
Yes, Dobbs is a bad man!
Check this out.
http://www.diggersrealm.com/mt.....03203.html
on November 13th, 2009 at 9:15 pm
An imbecile typed: “It’s very sad that peopple can no longer say what they think in this country.”
A paranoid delusional moron losing his show on a private network due to loss of advertizing dollars is not censorship. It is the free market in action.
on November 13th, 2009 at 9:57 pm
Some would feel as though MSNBC would be turning towards having a more truthful, balanced team of journalists if they were to get rid of Matthews and Olbermann. They spew just about as much hate as Dobbs ever could have, it’s just that it’s the flavor of hate that people like you enjoy …
“Unfortunately, Dobbs, Fox News, many print and internet news organizations continually threaten the peace, safety and prosperity of our democracy with their sectionalist lies and underhanded incitements to the most base and cruel nature of humankind in the name of personal or corporate profit.”
You forgot MSNBC, ABC News, and CBS (if you remember, Dan Rather left CBS in disgrace over a lie – but, in your mind, he was probably a martyr for the truth). They all lie, and they all pander to whom they perceive as their base. Because it feeds and validates our emotions, we eat it up and are saying that it is the “truth”. Why? Because to us it *is* our truth. We even view facts through the lens by which we see the world.
Unfortunately, that doesn’t make it reality.
Don’t get me wrong – liberals are some of the nicest people in the world (except for the militant nut cases). I know quite a few. They believe that all people, at their core, are good. In a liberals mind, POWs should be tried in criminal courts, where the individual can be assessed. Even Ted Bundy could be understood and have his broken wings mended so that he could fly. Liberals detest labels, but adore Hello Kitty (two of my liberal friends do, so please excuse the shameless generalization).
Taking the time to weigh the individual is great for job interviews, prosecuting crimes, and hiring a babysitter. Too bad it doesn’t help in a war. There’s not enough lawyers (thank goodness).
on November 13th, 2009 at 11:12 pm
Tim, conservatives are “demonized” because conservatives basically reduce all political debate to demonizing their opponents, sometimes almost literally in the case of hardcore fundamentalist Christians.
Dobbs willingly and repeatedly engaged in the propagation of propaganda after having been informed that it was false. This was scapegoating propaganda aimed at Mexicans and people of Mexican heritage. Rightfully so, he was accused of being racist.
Now a reality check for “Dave”. First off Dave, you are absolutely wrong in suggesting that American citizens who immigrated were all legal. Many overstayed visas and were granted citizenship by other means. Many engaged in fictitious marriages, were never caught, and obtained green cards. More importantly, millions of people came over at times when there were no immigration laws comparable to today. They were “legal” because there was no real law they could break.
On the issue of Obama’s birth certificate, the original, so called “vault certificate” was verified by the governor of Hawaii and the States Secretary of Health and Human Services. The Certificate of Live Birth produced is enough to get a passport issued in the US; I know because this is how I got my passport.
on November 14th, 2009 at 12:40 am
att dave varez let me correct myself i meant to say goverment not country. i do support lou and joe i wish we had joe in fla .
on November 14th, 2009 at 8:40 am
Dave Varez,
You asked who is behind the SPLC. I am with my monthly donation and many others who also support tolerance.
Anthony Thompson
Dallas, TX
on November 14th, 2009 at 10:12 am
i liked Lou because he was one of the few
people who accurately described Congress
as incompetent. or other govt bureacracies
as incompetent.
I favor abolishing INS.
on November 14th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
Bob Jones said,
on November 12th, 2009 at 6:09 pm
It’s very sad that peopple can no longer say what they think in this country. Its even more sad that the SPLC has sold its soul to the left.
To you, Bob and Carrie, too:
No one from SPLC ever said people aren’t entitled to their own opinions. The First Amendment isn’t involved here. Dobbs was supposed to REPORT THE NEWS, TRUTHFULLY. That was his JOB. His program was never billed as an “opinion show.” His reporting of hate-filled LIES on every program is what made him unsuitable to host a “news” progam on a supposedly neutral venue like CNN.
And yes, he wil be most welcome at FOX”news.” Good thing I can only take about a minute of that cesspool of stupidity at a time, so I won’t have to hear Dobbs ranting again.
on November 14th, 2009 at 10:41 pm
I look at immigrants as neighbors, even if they happen to be on another continent. However, I draw the line at any neighbor barging into my house uninvited, checking my fridge, and rearranging the furniture.
on November 15th, 2009 at 3:19 am
Well Mark, maybe Lou Dobbs opposes illegal immigration because it is racist, it benefits Latin Americans 30 times more than Asian, Africans, and Europeans.
Since the SPLC supports this racist 30 to 1 immigration bias I am sure this won’t be posted.
on November 15th, 2009 at 10:08 am
I see the Birthers and other Reich Wingnuts in here are boo-hooing about Loonie Lou leaving CNN.
Cherr up, loonies. You know Dobbs will be on FOX News in no time at all.
You’ll keep getting your hate and propaganda LIES from Dobbs.
Don’t be sad, wingnuts!! Your delusions are all being validated over at FOX News.
on November 15th, 2009 at 10:37 am
To Bob Jones and Carrie,
As I understand it, free speech has never meant that one can shout ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theatre regardless of whether or not there are any flames. The right to free speech is beyond precious, but it does not give anyone the freedom to spread misinformation without consequences. If your child lies to you, you punish them, you don’t say ‘well, he has the right to free speech’.
Let me clairify. If Dobbs wanted to call for all immigrants to be deported, that’s within his right to free speech. If he says that immigrants have spread thousands of cases of leprosy among Americans, that is a Lie. It is a lie because it contradicts the real facts, and it becomes all the worse as a lie when he refuses to retract his statement when it is proven to be a lie. Free expression should be inviolable within journalism, the right to lie without facing criticism makes journalism meaningless and impossible to trust.
By calling for Dobbs to retract false statements, and even by condemning him and calling for his removal, the SPLC was exercising their right to free speech. By critisizing them or agreeing with them, you are exercising yours.
Journalists have the right to free speech too, but like political leaders, teachers, doctors, etc; I don’t think it’s unreasonable to set the bar a little bit higher. These people have the authority of legitimacy, and with that comes a certain responsibility. If you can’t meet that responsibility, regardless of if you’re on the left or right, than be prepared to face the critics. To anyone who acts as one of those critics by demanding fact, whether you do it against the spokespeople of the right or the left, or better yet both, congradulations, you are doing your part in defending free speech by protecting its integrity among those whose words hold the most weight.
on November 15th, 2009 at 10:57 am
“Who is financially behind you?”
Lots of concerned Americans.
Like me.
(Member since 1996)
on November 15th, 2009 at 11:05 pm
Hi, what an excellent debate and good reporting. Most impressive and dare I say democratic.
The maturity of a country should be judged by the level of debate and the degree of criticism that can be made of it’s august institutions… in this case CNN. Harvard is an elitist institution where unfortunately the priviledged still have the whip hand and it is not a meritocray and consequently will spawn as many ‘tossers’ (UK slang) as any other institution.
The important thing is stay grounded in reality. Where a country or other institution is able to take criticism of it’s self either of it’s present or it’s past then that exhibits a degree of both maturity and robustness. Ponder perhaps the Japanese and Chinese teaching in schools of their past and chauvanism is very close to the surface with the refusal to admit past transgressions. So carry on please… most entertaining and thought provoking. Greg Halligan( Cheshire, UK)
on November 16th, 2009 at 10:28 am
Ruslan said: “Tim, conservatives are “demonized” because conservatives basically reduce all political debate to demonizing their opponents, sometimes almost literally in the case of hardcore fundamentalist Christians.”
Quite a vicious cycle we have now, don’t we?
I don’t demonize liberals. I’ve never flung wanton insults at liberals. I have had them fling plenty at me. I’ve been called ignorant, racist, xenophobic, and downright evil.
I don’t have a problem with liberals. I do, however, have a problem with extremists – whether they are liberals or conservatives. It seems to me that the SPLC only focuses on the conservative extremists. To quote the banner on the top, it says “Keeping an eye on the radical right”.
So, taking that, and the writings of its membership, can you tell me why I couldn’t consider the SPLC a radical left-wing, racist organization? Can you please point out any flaws in my logic?
I will say that I do notice that there are Black Separatist organizations on the “hate map”. Of course, I am going to assume that the SPLC is now tracking where Alan Keyes eats his lunch.
You seem reasonably intelligent, and I am going to make the assumption that you’re proficient in US History. Can you tell me the last time there was such a divide amongst the American populace?
Tim
on November 16th, 2009 at 10:34 am
“Snorlax said,
on November 15th, 2009 at 10:08 am
I see the Birthers and other Reich Wingnuts in here are boo-hooing about Loonie Lou leaving CNN.
Cherr up, loonies. You know Dobbs will be on FOX News in no time at all.
You’ll keep getting your hate and propaganda LIES from Dobbs.
Don’t be sad, wingnuts!! Your delusions are all being validated over at FOX News.”
I heard that CNN considered a former correspondent from Pravda to fill in for Dobbs. I bet you would have liked that …
on November 16th, 2009 at 11:23 am
Ruslan Amirkhanov said,
conservatives basically reduce all political debate to demonizing their opponents, sometimes almost literally in the case of hardcore fundamentalist Christians. ”
Rus , here is your pal snorlax:
“I see the Birthers and other Reich Wingnuts in here are boo-hooing about Loonie Lou leaving CNN.
Cherr up, loonies…Don’t be sad, wingnuts!! Your delusions” …
That’s mild.
You post and read the responses thruout this site Rus. As a separate issue aside from lib/cons. points of view , it cant be any more clear that the demonization process is the domain of the libs. Not that cons. are blameless , but in perspective ,
the winners of this category is clear.
“Dobbs willingly and repeatedly engaged in the propagation of propaganda after having been informed that it was false. This was scapegoating propaganda aimed at Mexicans and people of Mexican heritage. Rightfully so, he was accused of being racist.”
Rus , I dont listen to Dobbs much to argue the point , so lets just assume the accusations of
incorrect info , and refusing to correct it , are true.
It does not then follow that your claim of being a racist is then the case.
Dobbs issue is ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION.
That it is Mexican in nature is not his focus – that it is illegal is – he is not in favor of illegal immigration from any other quarter either , so because the thrust of this is from Mexico , it is inappropriate to brand him a racist as a result.
He is not against Mexican LEGAL immigration?
What you are doing is D-E-M-O-N-I-Z-I-N-G.
“Now a reality check for “Dave”. First off Dave, you are absolutely wrong in suggesting that American citizens who immigrated were all legal.”
Many were , and were vetted , but what kind of argument is it to refer to others in the past who “got away with it” as a defense for ongoing illegalities?
If a bank robber “got away with it” , it then follows that we have to then turn a blind eye to all future bank robbers as a result?
That’s the “reality check” you are giving me?
“On the issue of Obama’s birth certificate, the original, so called “vault certificate” was verified by the governor of Hawaii and the States Secretary of Health and Human Services.”
The public wants to see the document , not just Dobbs.
Obama , the “transparent President” , is fighting every attempt to release this document publicly -
One defense was “this court is the wrong jurisdiction to argue this issue???” …..
This request for transparency is not being requested in a vacuum – there are conflicting evidenciary issues , and quite frankly though I’d
given little creedence to the camp that claimed
he was foreign born , the obstinence to this simple request makes me more uncertain as to what the actual truth is.
Bob Jones said ,
“His reporting of hate-filled LIES on every program is what made him unsuitable to host a “news” progam on a supposedly neutral venue like CNN.
And yes, he wil be most welcome at FOX”news.”
Bob , assuming it is true that inaccuracies were presented and not later conceded , it is unfortunate – but I sometimes watch in amazement at the comments made and conclusions drawn by liberal commentators -
AND ELECTED OFFICIALS! – that I hear no objections to? If Dobbs is guilty of these transgressions , he is no more guilty than many others who are not even challenged , much less acted against?
As for the demonization of Fox , I once again have to state that I cant imagine those commenting against it have ever actually watched , because lets say in the case of Dobbs , for example -
On Fox , if he entertains questionable facts , I can categorically state that there will be proponents on the other side – I’d bet likely from this website -
who WILL DEBATE HIM AND PRESENT EVERYTHING BEING SAID HERE – ON FOX , per their two sided format.
THIS is the reason Fox has viewership astronomically higher than any other – not because they “trade integrity for ratings” -
But because any genuous person who wants to hear BOTH SIDES of an issue can always do so on Fox -
I , for example , have become aware of many facts and arguments AGAINST the “Fox house view” on issues simply by watching Fox where all sides are aired.
How can anyone villify them under these circumstances?
Especially when other networks rarely /never do the same?
Note: Despite major disagreements with the views of this sites management , it should be acknowledged that all views are fairly posted here as well.
Oh , yeah – and those “Fox babes” dont hurt the ratings either(smile/wink).
on November 16th, 2009 at 10:22 pm
Actually Dave, “the public” doesn’t want to see “the document”, because the public is not retarded, understands that the birth certificate which was released is good enough for anyone to get a passport in the US, and realizes how idiotic it would be for someone to run a candidate who isn’t elgible to be president.
on November 17th, 2009 at 9:15 am
Ruslan,
I have a mentally handicapped brother. Calling people the epithet “retarded” is hateful speech. Kind of ironic coming from a liberal posting on a web site that promotes tolerance and supposedly abhors that kind of talk.
I guess it is OK when liberals do it when they’re trying to prove a point? :(
on November 17th, 2009 at 10:10 am
Why do you say “the Birth Certificate” which was released” ?
It was not a birth certificate – it was a Certificate Of Live Birth.
I know it sounds similar , but it is not .
Are you aware of the requirements to obtain
a Certificate Of Live Birth?
Almost anyone can get one , sight unseen .
“The public” does want to see “the document”.
Just because you dont , many do.
Like I’d said , I’d highly doubted any validity to this issue until such staunch opposition was presented in return to a mundane request to simply show the original Birth Certificate publicly , not unreasonable considering some questions concerning the issue and , after all – the guy was running for President!
Fighting this in court using legal tricks and avoidance tactics?
Now I wanna see it too.
( So , I guess I’m now a racist?)
on November 17th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
SO MUCH FOR FREE SPEACH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
on November 17th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
What Carrie Prejean forgets is that while she has the right to state her opinion, others also have the same right to publically express their disagreement of hers. I’m also tired of her whining that she’s being crucified in the media regarding her opinion. No, we’re calling out an allegedly “Christian” girl who once again picks and chooses from the Bible to try to justify her bigotry. Meanwhile, it’s apparently fine to pose topless (the wind blew her top back, my ass) and send multiple sex tapes to a boyfriend. It’s well within everyone’s right to point out what a major hypocrite she is and THAT is what she’s getting called on.
on November 17th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
Thanks SPLC for your efforts to get Lou Dobbs off of CNN. His leaving should have been much, much sooner.
Chris Spotted Eagle, Minneapolis, MN
on November 17th, 2009 at 2:10 pm
It amazes me how much hate the people spew as followers of your website which is supposedly an organization dedicated to the removal of hate from the American culture…..hate Lou Dobbs, hate Fox News…..there is an awful lot of hypocrosy here… it makes a moderate wonder what the “real political agenda” is here……wait, I think I know. Too bad, you had me for about a second.
on November 17th, 2009 at 2:35 pm
Mr. Varez….
Please, PLEASE stop misusing the word “vetted.” Immigrants are NOT “vetted”…..simply because you hear a new word doesn’t mean you have to try and use it with every breath you take!
on November 17th, 2009 at 2:42 pm
Wasn’t Dobbs born in México? Isn’t his wife of Mexican heritage?
on November 17th, 2009 at 3:04 pm
I like Lou Dobbs and I would only watch him on CNN, with Lou gone, I will never watch CNN. There are many things that I disagree with where CNN is concerned, but when they say they do not want Lou’s opinion, just the facts, it is so leftist I hope they go the way of MSNBC and all the left newspapers that spew their idiology non-stop. Back to CNN, please, like Anderson Cooper doesn’t give his leftist views ALL THE TIME. He is such a hack like the rest they aren’t worth even noting. Someday these hacks that call themselves journalists will wake up and realize most Americans are not stupid, even though we have a media that can’t report what is really news, they are way too busy staying on their knees to their Gods.
on November 17th, 2009 at 3:44 pm
Wow Dave, it’s amazing that you just happen to be an expert on civil records. Or wait…maybe you just read that stuff on some conspiracy sites and you’re just regurgitating the same clap-trap that I’ve been hearing from nuts like you ever since this issue came up.
Let me explain something very slowly- a Certificate of Live Birth is considered valid enough to get a passport. That’s how I got my passport. In addition to releasing that certificate, the two government officials I already mentioned certified the original.
Obama is under no obligation to prove anything to you and your coterie of nutcases, who are thankfully a small minority regardless of how many hits your websites get. Neither does his refusal to do so mean anything. Try sending a letter to George W. Bush asking him if he is a reptilian shape-shifter. One person already did so- and Bush NEVER replied!! Hmmmmm……
on November 17th, 2009 at 3:45 pm
PS What “legal tricks” are you talking about? You mean how the courts laugh those lawsuits out?
on November 17th, 2009 at 4:04 pm
Who supports SPLC? People like me, a member since 1992 and proud of it!
With apologies to the author whose name I can’t remember, “Dobbs is entitled to his own opinions, but not his own facts.”
on November 17th, 2009 at 6:35 pm
R Weber said:
“What Carrie Prejean forgets is that while she has the right to state her opinion, others also have the same right to publically express their disagreement of hers. ”
Yes, but not to try to destroy her. Why don’t they do that level of snooping on any other pageant candidate? Reason: They didn’t have a reason to until that incident.
Prior to that incident, I do believe that she was a frontrunner for that pageant. She answered a question posed by a homosexual man the wrong way, and it drove him nuts. He could not handle her having a dissenting opinion. She angered the left, and they sent out their minions to destroy her. Regardless of the reasons, that is WRONG.
I just wish the folks on the left would have enough decency to admit it. Alternatively, if admission of this is too much, they should at least get off of the high horse and stop acting as though they are the doves of tolerance.
They are the farthest thing from it.
on November 17th, 2009 at 7:32 pm
A life long independent, I try to avoid leaning towards either wing in politics. I cannot see a problem with a journalist who believes that immigration should all be legal, regardless of where it comes from. I also don’t see a problem in that journalist agreeing that there seems to be an issue when a great deal of time, effort and money is expended to avoid showing a document which could easily terminate “conspiracy theory” debates — when the document that has been shown seems to have been created with technology not in existence when Mr. Obama was born.
on November 17th, 2009 at 7:40 pm
My posts were not printed so I am going to try again.
Basically , I’d said that Rus was exhibiting
the “demeaning” personality many of his ilk do when frustrated.
And that a Certificate Of Live Birth is not recognized as verification by Hawaiian government agencies as a Birth Certificate is , so it is inaccurate to portray it as similarly accepted.
Also , that it can be obtained without verification and often is, in Hawaii , in the case of home births.
Obama has an obligation to provide this Birth Certificate evidence because it is a requirement to become President.
Fighting it in court and being thrown out does not constitute anything to cheer about , as Mafia gangsters have cases thrown out argued by their attorneys also.
And Rus , verbal degrading of those who disagree with your opinions does not elevate your opinions to a more valid status.
Lets see if this gets posted this time.
on November 17th, 2009 at 9:37 pm
Shame on you SPLC! You shouldn’t be able to influence a news channel to fire a journalist because you disagree with what he/she says. The manager at CNN who let you influence the station and news the public receives is the one that should be fired! I have heard Dobbs apologize when he made an error in reporting, e.g., the leprosey comments. However, in presenting people who have a different point of view than SPLC – or anyone else – he should be allowed freedom of speech. You can present your point of view to discount them, which you certainly should have the resources to do.
I worked hard for civil rights for African Americans. Until recently, I considered my self an independent with strong liberal leanings. It is actions like that taken by the SPLC that have given me much more conservative leanings.
The problem with SPLC’s, and many others’, position on illegal immigration is that it “doesn’t see the forest for the trees”. I recommend a book that I just read: The Immorality of Illegal Immigration by Father Patrick Bascio. Please don’t try to get this courageous author defrocked because he has many of the same concerns that Dobbs has.
Again, shame on you. Perhaps, you should be fired!
on November 17th, 2009 at 9:45 pm
Those of you who do not live along the border need to wake up.
As for the birth certificate. This can be solved in one second. Produce it. Not the filing in Hawaii which has Pres. BHO’s race as AFRICAN. The last time is checked African is not a race.
Why did his grandmother say she was at his birth.
on November 17th, 2009 at 9:57 pm
Earth to Mark Potok and to SPLC. Article said, “He was interested in what I had to say, he said, and responded to my warning that an upcoming guest had ties to white supremacy by canceling the appearance.” Why is it that white supremacist is off limits but LaRazza is not off limits. LaRazza (the Race) spouts their supremacy all the time. You have no problem with LaRazza having their say. You have no problem with anyone having a say as long as it is not a white American. Personally, Mr. Potok, I am glad that Lou is off of CNN, it is nothing but a left propaganda outlet. News, no that is not reported, they wouldn’t know news if it slapped them in the face. They have a bunch of hacks who call themselves journalists.
on November 17th, 2009 at 10:13 pm
Who was it talking birther smack? I think it was Ruslan Amirkhanov who said Obama has nothing to prove. What planet do you reside on dude? He has the title of President, he needs to prove himself legal just as every other President has had to prove themselves legal to hold that position. Of course Obama has been given a pass by the media, by the left, by everyone other than conservatives that stand on value and say, no, you are no better than anyone else, you prove yourself. Of course he hasn’t, he can’t, he isn’t legal to hold office. The country is catching on and this issue isn’t going away because the left and the misfit media got one anchor fired. God forbid the left would want to speak the truth. What am I saying, they know the truth just the like right knows the truth. Obama is finding it harder and harder to hide what and who he is. I really don’t care about his BC any longer, I just want him impeached.
on November 17th, 2009 at 10:52 pm
To Chris (“that I disagree with where CNN is concerned, but when they say they do not want Lou’s opinion, just the facts, it is so leftist I hope they go the way of MSNBC and all the left newspapers that spew their idiology non-stop.”)
This says it all. Opinion is one thing – lies are another. We cannot have a functioning society when you call the truth leftist. “Ye shall know the Truth, and the Truth will set you free”. It is neither right nor left, but simply so. Lou’s increasing fanaticism made me leave CNN, even though I recognize the legitimate – I repeat, legitimate – concerns about illegal immigration. Hate doesn’t solve anything, it only destroys all, including itself.There are some things in the Bible about love, too—-
As to a birth certificate – I was born in Tennessee in 1923, at home in my parents’ apartment. The doctor neglected to register my birth, so there was never a birth certificate to present for any purpose. After two years of effort, my grandfather was able to get a “delayed certificate of birth” issued, based on a congratulatory telegram sent by an aunt on the day of birth. Each state handles it differently. But I am a bona fide citizen of the U.S. and have my passport.
on November 17th, 2009 at 10:55 pm
The educated differ from the uneducated as much as the living from the dead.
Aristotle. Now why didn’t I think of that, this quote sums up the followers of Hannity, Rush, and Fox News. It does not account for Glen Beck viewers though. They belong to something more unusual, more like John Birch breeds with UFO believers.
on November 17th, 2009 at 11:20 pm
Man, free speech is fine, but in his role he should be accurate, he’s held to a higher standard. Ask Dan Rather. It’s too bad, but in this era of shock/lazy journalism, he fell victim. He’s better suited for Fox “News” – they probably pay more and expect a lot, lot less in terms of accuracy and non-partisanship. Too bad Lou, you were a good fit for the George W era, but that time has passed.
on November 17th, 2009 at 11:28 pm
after reading all these posts, I personally have not seen or heard any proof that the reason for Dobbs leaving CNN was because of groups like SPLC, or any of the open border illegal alien loving groups like LaRaza, MALDEF, LULAC, MECHA, and a few others.
No one knows the real reason and until Dobbs says what the real reason is, all anyone can do is speculate.
Now, on to the topic of the leprosy thing. as this post stated, it was given by a Dr. Cosman, who this organization deems as lying about certain things. Maybe she did lie about the number of cases, but she was quoted that 7000 cases were attributed to illegaels and that is where the number comes from.
In regard to illegal immigration, this country does have a BIG problem with this. its something the congress has been working on, but the majority of people do not want to reward someone for entering a country illegally, or over staying visas. That is what the open border people and groups want.
Have you noticed that any group who disagrees with amnesty for illegals on this site is automatically deemed a racist, nativist, and zenophobe. I seriously dont think alot of the people are. they just want the government to enforce immigration laws that have been on the book since 1986. Nothing wrong with that, Its something every citizen should demand and want.
On to the birther question. Dobbs has said on his TV show and the video is on youtube that he thinks Obama was born in Hawaii but asks the president to show the long form because there are more important things to worry about. and he made this statement again on OReilly on 11-16-09.
Someone on an earlier post asked how come McCain had to prove his birth and show all his records which came about 1500 pages, if i remember right but no one has seen nothing on the history of the president.
The birther question came to light on Dobbs show because of the Army Reserve Major in Georgia who filed suit because he claimed Obama wasn’t a natural born citizen.
Someone else asked if Dobbs was born in Mexico, and from what I heard a long time ago was he was born in Texas, moved to Idaho. and yes, LOU DOBBS WIFE IS HISPANIC. She came here through the legal way.
and oh yeah. also mentioned on the 60 minutes interview was the FACT that Dobbs’ wifes parents also live with them in Jersey.
so anti Latino. Im not thinking so.
anti illegal immigrant…. yes.
and everyone, lets ask this, if the majority of the illegals in this country was not Latino, would La Raza, Lulac, Maldef and those groups who are for hispanic people only… would they be fighting as hard for illegal immigrants and amnesty???? I personally, dont think they would be raising a finger.
and one last think SPLC.. you claim the minutemen organization as racist and such. but i have yet to see you address the realiization that there are not only whites in these border watch and anti illegal immigrant groups, but there are also black, asians, and americans with hispanic origin… do me a favor and address THAT
and SPLC…. LaRaza in english means “the race”
isnt that racist in itself? you cant join if your not hispanic/latino in origin…. NOW talk about racism.
on November 18th, 2009 at 8:02 am
OK , you’ve obviously decided to censor my responses , and are reading this as you have to read em to censor em.
It’s a little weird to me because I have very little experience with censorship , being a lifelong U.S. guy where I just have never run into this.
Your house view guy Rus is nasty and demeaning yet his posts seem to flow thru like a knife on hot butter -
I believe mine are polite and express my views as fairly and informationally as I can , ready to be
informatively contradicted if factually incorrect.
But that doesn’t matter here?
If I seemed to be too clear and convincing delineating other than the house views , you simply exclude my posts?
WOW! Like I said – this is a new experience for me!
I guess I have to grow up and realize that everything (and everyone) is not interested in open (polite) discussion of issues , and views are VETTED to only be allowed if in lockstep , or if not , weak and easily deflected .
As I’ve pointed out , THIS is the reason Fox is the standout success it is , with the others scratching for an audience – The mainstream public , regardless of their thinking , wants to hear ALL SIDES of an issue , and not just an Olbermann like farce , where one view keeps getting pounded into your head , unchallenged.
But hey , your site , your policy decisions.
But please – dont knock a Dobbs before looking in the mirror at yourselves.
on November 18th, 2009 at 8:10 am
If you read this before moderating my previous
writing , I’d appreciate your disregarding the previous one.
I am heartened that though you did not post my initial writings , you posted the last.
IMO , that is sufficient to to bolster my (a few posts back) previously stated comment that you are an open forum despite my views being opposite to yours.
The concept of censorship to me is a freaky
experience IF one is being genuous in an opposing view , and not impolite and overbearing , in which case I’d exclude as well.
Thanks for showing me you’re an open forum.
on November 18th, 2009 at 8:24 am
Elizabeth said :
“I have heard Dobbs apologize when he made an error in reporting, e.g., the leprosey comments.”
Elizabeth , can you provide more detail concerning the leprosy apology you refer to?
This publication has taken the position that he presented and did not refute incorrect info as THE reason he should be terminated , and not his positions as the reason for termination..
Therefore , to me , it is an important point as to whether he adequately corrected an error of this type or not.
If he did so adequately , it greatly negates the position (and credibility!) of the above article.
If he did so INadequately , or not at all -
I still agree with his immigration position , but do not condone misinformation being presented wrongly , and especially knowingly , by either side of an issue.
on November 18th, 2009 at 9:43 am
Wow — this has nothing to do with free speech, which is a Constitutional prohibition against government censorship, as there was no government action here.
This has nothing to do with liberal versus conservative. One would hope that both would want accurate resources.
Yes, this has only to do with accuracy … and the resulting social pressure on people who have public voices to not lie … and to reconsider the accuracy of their sources of influence, especially when presented with complete information that contradicts their initial suppositions.
When someone resigns, it’s a clue they can’t function as they wanted anymore, regardless if the alternative would have been to fire them.
Good for us otherwise voiceless common folk! Win win all around in the ongoing search for accuracy in public discourse.
(Interesting the wandering of the comments into the challenge to live up to our Constitutional imperative to treat all people with equivalent consideration, be they women, gays, immigrants, people of color, children, other religions, and so on. Accuracy is a challenge, especially when it strikes at the heart of life-long deeply-trained inaccurate beliefs.)
on November 18th, 2009 at 10:53 am
Lolita said:
“As to a birth certificate – I was born in Tennessee in 1923, at home in my parents’ apartment. The doctor neglected to register my birth, so there was never a birth certificate to present for any purpose. After two years of effort, my grandfather was able to get a “delayed certificate of birth” issued, based on a congratulatory telegram sent by an aunt on the day of birth. Each state handles it differently. But I am a bona fide citizen of the U.S. and have my passport.”
Lolita , if you were running for President , especially considering the circumstances you describe , would you willingly publicly provide that Birth Certificate if requested , or go to court in an attempt to avoid doing so?
Chris said :
“Of course he hasn’t, he can’t, he isn’t legal to hold office. ”
To be fair , the suspicion (which I also now have)
resulting from a failure to willingly present the B.Cert. does not preclude that there is none and that he isn’t legal – Only that we have a right to VET this issue to a certainty.
on November 18th, 2009 at 3:49 pm
Chris, it is generally assumed that presidential candidates are aware of whether or not they are eligible to be president. That would also be a MAJOR concern for the party of the candidate, which incidentally coughs up the funds. Just imagine what would happen if a party raised all that money, just to get a candidate elected who can’t be president. That party would be finished, and the US would effectively be a one party state.
It can reasonably be assumed that if someone is running for president, they fit the requirements. Obama has a Certificate of Live Birth, which is considered a valid legal birth certificate since most if not all states no longer issue copies of the original.
on November 19th, 2009 at 6:12 pm
Tim said; “I have never seen a conservative organization try to destroy another group.”
As the old saying goes, there are none so blind as those who refuse to see.
on November 19th, 2009 at 8:38 pm
“it is generally assumed that presidential candidates are aware of whether or not they are eligible to be president.”
Oh , my mistake then.
Lets just forget about it.
Either we are morons to be talked down to , and
when not in that mode , fed this :
“It can reasonably be assumed that if someone is running for president, they fit the requirements.”
Like John Edwards did?
“That would also be a MAJOR concern for the party of the candidate, which incidentally coughs up the funds. Obama has a Certificate of Live Birth”
The party of the candidate , you say?
Wouldn’t Edwards have been that had he won?
Did they know what was up with him?
“A commentator at Canada Free Press says he has obtained copies of two documents apparently prepared by Democrats to certify Barack Obama as their nominee for president in 2008 that suggest House Speaker Nancy Pelosi knew there was an unresolved issue with his eligibility under the U.S. Constitution. ”
“The first includes a verification that Obama and Joe Biden, then-candidate for vice president, “are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution.”
“The second form obtained by Williams appears identical, down to a typographical error in “through.” But in this one, THE VERIFICATION OF ELIGIBILITY UNDER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION IS GONE.”
” “The DNC drafted, signed and notarized TWO slightly different versions of their Official Certification of Nomination documents, not one,” he wrote. “One of those documents had complete legal language, and one of them was missing the text concerning the constitutional eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama.
“THE VERSION WHICH IS ABSENT ANY CERTIFICATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL STANDING FOR THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT IS THE VERSION THAT WAS FILED WITH EVERY STATE IN THE COUNTRY AND THE ONE USED BY THE DNC TO ELECT OBAMA ,” he wrote.
WND contacted the Democratic National Committee multiple times over three days to request an explanation of the two images, including whether one might be a forgery. A SPOKESWOMAN IN THE PRESS OFFICE CONFIRMED , WE ARE AWARE OF IT , ” but declined to elaborate.
Here is a link to the above , including the actual two documents referred to :
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?f.....eId=109363
Now look , I am not a conspiracy theorist , and though my positions are not in sync with the President’s , I accept him as the Commander in Chief Of the Armed Forces of the United States of America , and as our President , and do not want this issue to prove of any merit.
But the above , if as stated – and I welcome any
facts to the contrary – is an example of just one of many reasons why I am saying why cant we see the official document and put an end to all this?
I hope it would end that simply , but not because
Rus tells us that everything is “A-OK” –
But rather because we’ve seen the original documentation on file in Hawaii.
on November 20th, 2009 at 8:08 am
It is indeed highly curious to watch this develop from the other side of the water (the UK).
There is a strong element of “belief” entering the debate: the SPLC and supporters highlight factual inaccuracies made by Dobbs; opponents then storm in and raise a virtual storm, about “liberals”, free speech and such, without actual appearing to answer the “facts”: that Dobbs was distorting the truth.
I love the States, but there is an almost childlike naivety about the way in which some of her peoples understand and view the world around them. Shockingly so at times. You guys have more freedom to express any opinion than almost anywhere in the world; yet with such freedom comes responsibility.
on November 20th, 2009 at 10:49 am
People like Lou Dobbs are dangerous. They make vague comments that they claim they shouldn’t be held responsible for but they know exactly what they’re doing. It’s like whispering “fire” in a crowded theater. It gets around quickly enough to cause damage but no loss of life. Well, it looks like it cost him the life of his so-called career on that network anyway. Not that he’s bothered by that, there are plenty of other nut cases he can preach to.
on November 20th, 2009 at 11:19 am
Ryan , you must have missed the post where Elizabeth noted Dobbs had corrected his error , and my Nov. 18 post referring to this , asking for more info to VET her comment , and pointing out a non -acceptance of inaccuracy on either side.
Not sure I’d accept “naive and childlike” as a description of that rersponse?
Also , while not approving of any inaccuracy , I do not think it is superfluous to point out that
there are many inaccuracies by many on both sides , so when only one specific party is targeted by a campaign against him , as a way to defeat his agenda , is that in itself fair , as all the rest are simply ignored?
In the Biden -Palin debate , independant researchers found an incredible number of inaccuracies in Biden’s claims during the debate -
Nobody cared , and he went on to become Vice President without a whimper.
I have to repeat again , I do not condone anything Dobbs may have said which was inaccurate and not corrected -
But why is a campaign per this issue only unleashed on him?
on November 20th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
OMFG!!! I can’t believe we are still having this f***ing discussion, after the birthers being shown to be the fruitcakes that they are, after three “Kenyan” birth certificates being shown to be fakes (they have to cheat to prove their point), and these people are still not embarrassed to poke their heads up any more??? How often do they need to be laughed off of the stage?
on November 22nd, 2009 at 8:24 am
I have said this so many times and so many places that I don’t think anyoue is listening. The American news media is controlled by mainly two people, and other opions are supressed. If we as a country cannot see what is happening and look to the rest of the world for our source of truth, we are doomed to repeat the experience of the USSR, thinking when the government said”??????” they meant “truth”. Fox News, by the way, is the American arm of Pravda.
on November 23rd, 2009 at 11:35 am
vickie morrison, I don’t think Dobb’s comments are vague, he uses the 1st amendment as an excuse, but his excuse is twisted so that he (and others like him) can avoid responsibility for his irresponsible use of the 1st amendment. They are like the guy that leaves a loaded gun laying around the house, and when his 2 yo gets killed playing with it, tells the judge that they can’t put him on trial for his irresponsible behavior because of his right to bear arms. They don’t understand that the bill of rights only protects you <> you decide to use your rights irresponsibly, not after someone has been hurt by your acts.
on November 24th, 2009 at 6:53 pm
What I find interesting was that Lou talked about China just as much as illegal immigration, and yet I never heard anyone saying he was anti-China (or anti-Chinese).
on November 26th, 2009 at 7:46 am
Allen said,
on November 20th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
“OMFG!!! I can’t believe we are still having this f***ing discussion, after the birthers being shown to be the fruitcakes that they are, after three “Kenyan” birth certificates being shown to be fakes (they have to cheat to prove their point), and these people are still not embarrassed to poke their heads up any more??? How often do they need to be laughed off of the stage?”
Thanks Allen.
Allen , until you posted this informational and inciteful comment , I had my doubts.
Thanks for addressing all the issues and clarifying them for me.
By the way , what was the story with that certificate claiming Hawaiian birth that could not have been real?
Does that one count in your analysis?
And what about the two different Dem Nat’l. Committee Certifications?
Was that the case?
If incorrect , please verify.
If not , or you cant -
Then what’s so funny?
If I laugh at you , would that lend creedence to my concerns ?
Because it seems as if you believe that scoffing
at others automatically verifies your assumptions with no regard for unanswered concerns..
on November 26th, 2009 at 9:49 pm
There is a lot of garbage being talked about here by both the left and the right. The fact is illegal immigrants are breaking the law. Either the law should be changed or people who support illegals should shut up. If we all decide what laws we want to follow and hold rallies to break the law don’t worry soon the child molseters and rapists along with the murderers will have thier rally also.
Wake up America work together stop fighting each other.
on November 30th, 2009 at 10:30 am
It’s not a left or right issue, but an accuracy issue.
Clear the fog, and see that Lou Dobbs lied.
A successful democracy demands accuracy, not lies.
I have no idea what all the other noise is about — this is a “Lou Dobbs Lied and Quit” thread, not an all encompassing “good laws versus bad laws versus good people versus bad people” thread.
Enough already.
If you have nothing to write about your own experience of Lou Dobbs, then it probably does not belong in this thread.
on November 30th, 2009 at 7:34 pm
to Peter Blaise:
It certainly is a left/right issue, at least to the SPLC. Look at the links on the right of the blog, Alternet, Democracy Now, Media Matters, etc.
And Dobbs lied? you mean, he reported a couple (SPLC found literally like 3, out of how many hundred[s]) of erroneous reports. How many years has “Lou Dobbs Tonight” has been on? 6 years, M-F, virtually every single week? But, he lied. Well, President Obama is a liar, too, by those standards.
on December 1st, 2009 at 6:40 pm
On dave varez –
I often find that nonsensical points do a really good job of debunking themselves, so most of the time the best retort is no retort at all. Just consider the source.
on December 2nd, 2009 at 3:25 pm
So, lying IS a left/right issue? Which side if FOR lying, and which side is AGAINST lying? Please resend if I don’t understand your point.
And since Lou Dobbs QUIT, what’s the hay? It was HIS choice, not because or in spite of ANY of the above diatribes.
Regarding this blog page, I do see Religious Right Watch
and Right Wing Watch, and I suppose it makes sense for them to change the names because their problems are not with their left- or right- ness, but with their inaccuracy and hatred — the blog is called Hatewatch, after all (and I imagine there are leftwingers who are hatefully inaccurate, also).
So, HATE is important, and INACCURACY is the most important issue here for me. And I do consider Lou Dobbs’s inaccuracy hateful. So, I thank SPLC and Lou Dobbs for somewhat reducing the inaccuracy and hate on publicly accessible broadcast.
Next?
on December 2nd, 2009 at 7:06 pm
“Just consider the source.”
Allen , none of us here actually know each other , but I am about as conservatively mainstream as they come , and have pointed out that I support the Office Of The President even if I disagree with policies .
Your comments add nothing to the discussion -
You have no info other than to inform us of your
position and that you think anyone who disagrees with you is a nut.
This advances nothing – it does not validate or
invalidate your beliefs – It simply adds nothing to the discussion.
on December 2nd, 2009 at 7:22 pm
“And Dobbs lied? you mean, he reported a couple (SPLC found literally like 3, out of how many hundred[s]) of erroneous reports.”
Michael , while any inaccuracy should be corrected , your post brings two points to mind :
If interested in doing so , how many errors could
an entity , lets say SPLC , (used only as an example) , find in reports sympathetic to their cause , which are left unmentioned?
Also , in terms of removing Dobbs , how does his “transgressions” , whatever degree they may be , compare to other broadcasters not even challenged , much less being called for dismissal?
As to the true reason for dismissal , I read an article in Crain’s NY Business which pointed out the financial woes of CNN (prime time audience down two thirds in October!) , and how they were gearing up for foreign exposure as a main thrust for the future, and as such could not afford the controversy Dobbs was creating as it was counterproductive to their international plans per impartiality , thus desiring him to leave.
on December 11th, 2009 at 12:50 pm
I don’t miss Dobbs.
on December 18th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
In reading through the blogs about Lou Dobbs,it seems that people feel that “free speech” is being choked by the protestests over his “news”. It used to be that “the news” was objective, and not opinion-based (as much as humanly possible). There used to be pride in journalism as a profession. I wonder if thee still is.
on December 19th, 2009 at 8:37 pm
OMG, Are the birthers still at it? They are so tiresome. How did Lou Dobbs go from being a respected financial commentator (on PBS at one time, I believe) to some sort of whore for tlhe lunatic fringe? Honestly, did he have a stroke? I had prayed he would disappear from CNN & head to Fox or purgatory or la-la land. It was too good to be true when he walked. I guess CNN had had it — finally & told him to tone down the rhetoric or be fired or resign.
on December 19th, 2009 at 8:57 pm
There would be no discussion at all about birth certificates if there wasn’t virulent racism in our country. The birthers hate Obama because he is an African-American. That’s behind it all. People, & I know people who are prejudiced and would never vote for a president of color, or who would want or allow their children to date a person of color. I grew up in the deep South so I am very aware of the sort of idiotic bigotry that went on and, for that matter, still goes on. I know the “code” words & catch phrases. Don’t be disingenous & say, with a straight face, well, it’s not race. Racism is indeed the real reason behind the birther movement. That & a desire to look like idiots & fools & have the rest of the world laugh at these morons & become further convinced a goodly number of Americans really are a bunch of parochial hicks. Damn, it’s not like Obama wants to marry their daughters.
on December 22nd, 2009 at 4:39 pm
I’m glad I finally got to read a detailed account of
Mr. Dobbs’ final departure.
The thing that angers me most, however, is that Dobbs
was allowed to get away with so much for so long!
Believe me, I don’t have any respect for CNN anymore.
In fact, I’d like to give Jonathan Klein, CNN president, a huge piece of my mind!
on December 22nd, 2009 at 6:17 pm
“mountaingirl08 said,
on December 19th, 2009 at 8:57 pm
There would be no discussion at all about birth certificates if there wasn’t virulent racism in our country. The birthers hate Obama because he is an African-American. That’s behind it all. ”
Yeah , by the lunatic , skinhead fringe on the Right , just like you Lefties have extremists.
I got beat up twice as a teenager by White gangs defending , on one occasion , a group of Black friends , and another a Black stranger who was accosted getting off a bus for no reason.
And I wasn’t glad Obama was elected on a policy basis , but I was proud of it on a racial basis – just as with Clarence Thomas and Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powell , who I supported , and were ignored by the Left as groundbreaking because they didn’t support them politically.
I’m not saying Obama wasn’t born in Hawaii – I’m saying we have a right to the release of all verification documents per conflicting info.
So – I’m a racist? I hope those that voice that opinion are just plain ignorant , because at least that would be honest as opposed to a disgusting purposeful political tactic.
on December 22nd, 2009 at 8:27 pm
mountaingirl: according to your logic, there would be no birthers if it weren’t for rainfall, fireflies, and grape jelly. Yes, there is racism. There is also the coward’s way of blaming every attack on Obama on racism, instead of actually dealing with the issues. Dobbs said he believes Obama was born in Hawaii — and there is a valid question as to why so much effort has been put into hiding many parts of his past. Here’s the basic question — and while it is “black and white” — it has NOTHING to do with racism: What is Obama trying to hide, and why????????????
on December 22nd, 2009 at 10:12 pm
We don’t have to say that the birthers are racist. All we have to do is to ask them, why do they think that this President should be held to any higher standards of proof than any other President (including Clinton, who they hunted down like an animal). They will either answer or they will not; either way, they convict themselves.
on December 23rd, 2009 at 12:20 am
to Peter Blaise:
This is a “hatewatch” blog. The blog links to left-wing websites. It doesn’t take a degree to connect the dots and see that the SPLC is not politically unbiased, and dare I say, left-wing.
His innaccuracy was hateful? Haha, ok then. I always assumed you’d have to do something intentionally in order to be hateful, but ok
on January 11th, 2010 at 9:39 am
Allen said,
on December 22nd, 2009 at 10:12 pm
“We don’t have to say that the birthers are racist. All we have to do is to ask them, why do they think that this President should be held to any higher standards of proof than any other President”
Not “any other President” , Allen – rather , any other candidate for President.
The fact that info was not provided prior to election as requested does not reflect a claim against a sitting President – it simply reflects a continuation of the unfulfilled request to a candidate , blindly elected anyway with questions still unanswered.
Any candidate where a question existed would have been similarly scrutinized – I can only imagine a Republican candidate having similar questionableness , considering that even Palin’s clothes were hyped as an issue by the Dem smear machine!
Not to mention McCain actually being scrutinized because he was born in Panama to a military parent , that being used to question his viability to be President!
Obama is not being held to any higher standard , and not only is bringing race into this a despicable tactic , but it ignores the great support Powell , Rice , and Thomas were given by the same Conservative/Republican people now being accused of racism. How stupid is that tactic?
And are there some extremists who are racist ?
Of course. But they are on both sides of the aisle ,
and seeking them out to try to make a point is silly – Should I claim Dems were against the three above I mention because of their race?
Of course not , I dont believe that for one minute – it was their politics only which the Dems rejected- and I’d be wrong to think anything else , and nobody did. But we coulda pointed to some Dem extremists and yelled “racism” . Couldn’t we have?I’d be curious as to your position on the comments made by Reid considering your , and others , jump to a ridiculous charge of racism per this issue with zero reason to do so.
on February 18th, 2010 at 3:02 pm
After reading all these commehts, the bottom line is this: Lou Dobbs is gone from CNN. Good bye, Lou, and good riddance.
on February 18th, 2010 at 3:38 pm
Glenn Beck is just as crazy. Fox News line up of freaks!
on March 5th, 2010 at 9:27 am
Good work. It will be awhile before the general population understands the difference between free speech and holding persons accountable for false reporting and creating a violent atmosphere. The time for us to hold reporters and the media personally accountable for the work they do has come. We are responsible for our actions…and our words, especialy when someone has a national platform to talk from. Holding Lou Dobbs accountable is a great start.
on March 5th, 2010 at 11:15 am
“Holding Lou Dobbs accountable is a great start.”
Christine , I’m just curious -
After this great start , who do you think should be the next few targets?
on March 5th, 2010 at 1:03 pm
Great question. I’d like to see a way for us to move forward with facts. The drama, fear tactics, and dishonest reporting has become the norm for many news programs and “reporters.” Who do you think stands out?
on March 5th, 2010 at 6:32 pm
Keith Olbermann
on March 7th, 2010 at 10:21 am
or the drama that is Glenn Beck
on March 8th, 2010 at 3:59 pm
I still don’t miss Dobbs. I don’t think I ever will.
on March 9th, 2010 at 10:04 am
What newscasters/programs do you feel do a good job? Where do you get your news from? Maybe part of this necessary change is to support those who give honest news and facts without the drama.
on March 9th, 2010 at 3:01 pm
Me? I don’t watch television, for starters. It’s way too superficial and misleading, and as Christine L points out, dramatic.
I usually get my news from a variety of internet sources, and attempt to sort out the conflicts myself to determine what is really going on. I think the media in general do a pretty good job, I just don’t think Dobbs did, nor do I think Fox does because one hour of prime time is news and the rest is views. People take the opinions for facts, and that is a very critical error.
on March 9th, 2010 at 4:18 pm
Without getting into debates about the issues themselves , the majority of the media , both mainstream and cable , have been slanting their reporting unashamedly and unquestionably to support Obama policies , though that has been tapering off a bit lately.
How do you support only those who are unbiased when the entire structure has been biased?
Fox is probably the best , and I’m not saying that because they are Conservatively biased , which obviously they are.
I am saying that because regardless of their “house view” , I have heard more honest debate from knowledgable proponents on both sides of an issue , and learned more about both sides of an issue via debate there , than any other news source.
on March 10th, 2010 at 12:26 pm
dave, with all due respect, are you high?
http://www.businessinsider.com.....you-decide
on March 10th, 2010 at 5:02 pm
Yeah beholder , that’s my problem , I’m high.
Any normal person can easily tell that the media is not biased towards Obama , and learns oh so much more of both sides of an issue listening to Keith Olbermann , or Katy Couric , than a debate on FOX by proponents of both sides of the issue..
Except for me – because I’m high.
on March 10th, 2010 at 11:00 pm
dave, surely you realize that any line of questioning can lead a debate in any direction that the moderator chooses. I have seen Bill O’Reilly shout down and even cut off the mike of his interlocutors, so fully convinced he is that his is the right point of view — and moreso, the ONLY point of view worth having. The idea of debate is not to convince yourself of your righteousness, but to build a reasoned argument along more or less accepted principles of logic, rhetoric, and persuasion. What I see here is you getting into the generalities of an ideological issue and attempting to build a case around a value judgement.
You should be careful with that — values can be as fallacious and misleading as they are compelling to whoever holds them. There is a need for some degree of compromise over values for there ever to be a consensus on any issue of ideology. At best, ideology is a reflection of what you see. But remember: you see with your mind, not with your eyes. And how your mind interprets what you see can be extremely deceptive, objectively, even if you believe it to be true.
So I think we would need to look at some of the specifics of this question to have a meaningful discussion about it. I also think there is no point, because you have already demonstrated that you have closed yourself off to any possibility that anyone else might be right, or that you yourself may not be infallible.
As another cautionary statement about fallacies, you refer to the media as an entity. The media have many individuals and many organizations, many vehicles for disseminating ideas, and many different types of editorial directives. I remind you, or perhaps you did not know, that the word “editor” comes from the same word in Latin that was used to describe the person responsible for orchestrating the gladitorial games and contests for the amusement of the people.
People are generally not amused when their ideas are rationally and factually challenged: so I am willing to conclude that you prefer Fox news because it does not require you to have any conflict of belief or any necessary crisis of conflicting evidence. You seek not to be informed, dave, you seek to be reassured. And fox does that. It’s comforting like smoking a joint. And the happiness is just as short lived and illusory.
on March 11th, 2010 at 9:18 am
Fox news? Seriously? Have you seen the movie OutFoxed? If not, I recommend watching it. It gives interviews from past Fox employees and their experiences.
Any news you watch needs to be thought of as part entertainment, I watch CNN. It isn’t perfect, but they do have several commentators from both sides. They are doing a decent job of showing both sides of the issues. They also show a clearer line between the news and the commentary.
on March 11th, 2010 at 2:24 pm
Beholder , please re-read my comment and your response.
Do you believe that you actually said anything?
Christine didn’t agree with me , and she said that she doesn’t agree.
You provided an esoteric lesson on the abstract that sounds like you found an old stash of hash , still potently intact – and tested it out!
Per your reference to O’Reilly or others , I had acknowledged that there is a “house view” , and I agree that some hosts there dominate , but Combs was the best you could get IMO to counter Hannity’s point of view , and no stupid lackey yes man.
And I’m not referring to the FOX segments without balance – I’m referring to the ones with it.
I have learned/listened to very influential , knowledgable , and well versed proponents of views on both sides in Fox debates , I dont know where you guys were when I was watching this (haven’t watched in awhile – has that changed?) -
But go try to get an opposing point of view watching Olbermann.
on March 11th, 2010 at 2:27 pm
And last I checked CNN doesn’t have a landing page for photo shopped images of Obama or Biden so that people can do violence with an image. It is violence, and I think the Secret Service ought to investigate the kinds of people who are so angry at their government that they would derive satisfaction from distorting the human image. Yes I am prepared for the angry backlash that Bush was depicted as a demon. Bush also left one million dead in Iraq and convinced America to do so on the basis of lies — 900 lies. That is a far cry from calling Obama a ghetto-dwelling Islamo-Bolshevik illegal alien from the first day he set foot in the White House, and never letting up despite the dearth of facts.
on March 11th, 2010 at 9:06 pm
@beholder — Dude, you’ll get more out of the joint than you EVER will out of Fox Noise.
on March 12th, 2010 at 11:13 am
First off beholder , you did not address the point of discussion I made – that I – maybe you missed all those segments – listened to a plethora of opinions and arguments delineating the positions of both sides of an issue , made by respected proponents of both sides on FOX.
Thus I was exposed to the opposite of what may have been the “house view” , more than anywhere else. Are you saying that Olbermann is where to go for balance , not Fox?
Second , it is no surprise to me that your initial philosophical lecture saying basically nothing was the prelude to “how dare they mock Obama , but
it’s ok to defile Bush.”
BUT – its Fox , not you , who lacks objectivity.
Bush didn’t kill anyone – Saddam gassed an entire Kurdish town to death.
The Shites and Sunni’s killed each other instead of celebrating freedom , and if you bother to check official statistics instead of the hate media you obviously believe , you’ll find that the “million” you refer to that they tell you is ridiculous.
But your politics , deducing that it’s ok to defile Bush but off limit to mock Obama , eliminates any possibility of logical objective discussion with you -
You are that which you are complaining about -
Subjective.
My point is – reread my initial post on this –
That FOX , while not trying to disingenuously feign neutrality like the pathetic Katy Couric types do so embarrassingly , nonetheless provides information directly from alternate points of view for viewers to consider.
Why do you think that they are #1 and their viewership is higher than the rest COMBINED , even when Conservatives are out of favor?
You might consider that you are missing something because you refuse to consider the facts objectively per your emotional bias.
on March 12th, 2010 at 2:10 pm
Since you are talking about the middle east, why not go to a news network that is based in the middle east? http://english.aljazeera.net/
Fox news puts up a stooge like Colmes to provide a smarmy pencil necked pin headed stereotype as an amusing foil to whatever the conservatives have to say. The formula is very simple: search out facts that seem to substantiate a popular conservative view, present those facts thunderingly and authoratatively in a superficial segment, then pan to Colmes to squirm and muse on it for a few minutes before cutting back to O’Reilly, who says, see folks, Fox news is Fair and Balanced. Colmes is nothing more than Fox News’ house negro.
on March 12th, 2010 at 3:35 pm
beholder , I dont think that you , and many , who have come to conclusions on Fox have really become well versed in it , and may be coming to your conclusions based on minimal perusals rather than in depth viewing – ie; Combs was Hannity’s adversary , not O’Reilly’s
My conclusions have nothing to do with my owm views – I am not debating issues here , just the presentation of them , and regardless of right or wrong and the assumptions thereof , I simply found more info from both sides presented from Fox than from others – their viewership numbers say others agree.
By the way , despite rarely agreeing with him , I found Combs to be an incredibly sharp , knowledgable proponent of his views and had developed a respect for him per his astuteness.
And when debates among “experts” are presented , pretty much equal time is given to outside debaters – hard to not gain an insight on all views presented.
But I guess you find Katy Couric , Dan Rather – and Keith Olbermann the true essence of “fair and balanced” instead.
Hey , one thing I wont argue with – it’s a free country , you’re welcome to your conclusions.
on March 15th, 2010 at 11:35 am
I simply found more info from both sides presented from Fox than from others – their viewership numbers say others agree.
————–
By your logic, Dancing With the Stars must be even more informative than Fox. I never said the viewers numbers were low. I said that the programming is grossly slanted to convince rather than inform, to dazzle with superficial reflection and canned conclusions rather than pursue critical ideas through open debate. If you read my comments, you will see that I don’t get my news from television. I don’t even have a television. I stay informed from a variety of internet sources, radio, or going there and seeing for myself what is going on.
on March 28th, 2010 at 4:24 pm
What a concept, a man who stands up for FOLLOWING the law! THANK YOU MR. DOBBS!!!
We are (well, were when we were successfull) a nation of laws, not riots in the street. Given the present Administration and polically correct atmoshpere, we must pray the violence does not expand beyond the well know extremist organizations like ELF and Green Peace.