Obama's war on Fox News [Archive]

don webb

October 17th, 2009, 01:29 PM

.

White House criticism of Fox “Increased Ratings”

News Corp. chairman Rupert Murdoch said on Friday that White House criticism of commentators on his Fox News television channel had served to "tremendously" increase their ratings.

Murdoch's remarks came after White House Communications Director Anita Dunn told The New York Times earlier this week that Fox News was "undertaking a war against Barack Obama and the White House."

Hey Anita : "How about pretending you work for the President of the United States and not some left-wing blog in the United States......:hump:

Oh yeah, Glenn is still waiting on that phone call

http://www.breitbart.tv/cavuto-to-anita-dunn-lets-pretend-you-work-for-the-president-and-not-some-left-wing-blog/#

.

El Comandante

October 17th, 2009, 01:53 PM

"Fox is the opposition...." Exactly.

Right wing infomercial 24/7.

Excrement_Cranium

October 17th, 2009, 02:59 PM

Signa

October 17th, 2009, 03:34 PM

In one of the articles I read on the issue, Murdoch compared Fox News and bobble-head shows like O'Reilly and Glenn Beck to "editorials in the newspaper."

So?

Well, news is news. Editorials are the writer's opinion of the news.
Well, when it gets put on TV, people are going to watch it like it has some genuine merit to it. It could be a show of lies, and people will eat every single one up because they won't think they are lying, and just speaking "the truth" openly.

don webb

October 18th, 2009, 02:42 AM

Well, when it gets put on TV, people are going to watch it like it has some genuine merit to it. It could be a show of lies, and people will eat every single one up because they won't think they are lying, and just speaking "the truth" openly.

Kinda like all that garbage on the Laimstream Media?

.

Signa

October 18th, 2009, 04:29 AM

Kinda like all that garbage on the Laimstream Media?

.
Sure, why not.

Specific instances aside, I know I always feel more warm and cozy with something that is done professionally over an amateur alternative. I'm fully aware that sometimes amateur stuff can be better than the original (Dark_Alex with the PSP is a perfect example), but it's hard to want to wade through shit when there are people being paid to do a good job. Really, it's the wrong mentality to have in this day and age, but it's a hard feeling to shake. Others are going to be oblivious to such truths.

grab_grab_the_haddock

October 18th, 2009, 07:30 AM

Fox new's war on journalism.

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/722602/fox_news_wages_a_war_on_journalism/

Excrement_Cranium

October 18th, 2009, 08:56 AM

Kinda like all that garbage on the Laimstream Media?

.

Thank you sheep #4473927 for continuing to echo the Republican plan since Nixon.

don webb

October 18th, 2009, 01:03 PM

Fox new's war on journalism.

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/722602/fox_news_wages_a_war_on_journalism/

Of course being a “Private Enterprise” Murdock tells his people what to do, if they don’t like it they do know where the door is?

Now that is nothing compared to White House pressure to do the same not only on one station but several.

In the days before President Obama's last news conference, as the networks weighed whether to give up a chunk of their precious prime time, Rahm Emanuel went straight to the top.

Rather than calling ABC, the White House chief of staff phoned Bob Iger, chief executive of parent company Disney.

Instead of contacting NBC, Emanuel went to Jeffrey Immelt, the chief executive of General Electric.

He also spoke with Les Moonves, the chief executive of CBS, the company spun off from Viacom.

Whether this amounted to undue pressure or plain old Chicago arm-twisting, Emanuel got results: the fourth hour of lucrative network time for his boss in six months.

But network executives have been privately complaining to White House officials that they cannot afford to keep airing these sessions in the current economic downturn.

The networks "absolutely" feel pressured, says Paul Friedman, CBS's senior vice president: "It's an enormous financial cost when the president replaces one of those prime-time hours.

The news divisions also have mixed feelings about whether they are being used.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/02/AR2009080202045.html

P.S.: Here's something more recent.

LEAKED NETWORK MEMO REVEALS: Obama Controls Your Television Set

http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jjmnolte/2009/10/15/leaked-memo-reveals-the-white-house-has-control-of-your-television-set/

.

mountain_rage

October 18th, 2009, 01:52 PM

Of course being a “Private Enterprise” Murdock tells his people what to do, if they don’t like it they do know where the door is?

Now that is nothing compared to White House pressure to do the same not only on one station but several.

In the days before President Obama's last news conference, as the networks weighed whether to give up a chunk of their precious prime time, Rahm Emanuel went straight to the top.

Rather than calling ABC, the White House chief of staff phoned Bob Iger, chief executive of parent company Disney.

Instead of contacting NBC, Emanuel went to Jeffrey Immelt, the chief executive of General Electric.

He also spoke with Les Moonves, the chief executive of CBS, the company spun off from Viacom.

Whether this amounted to undue pressure or plain old Chicago arm-twisting, Emanuel got results: the fourth hour of lucrative network time for his boss in six months.

But network executives have been privately complaining to White House officials that they cannot afford to keep airing these sessions in the current economic downturn.

The networks "absolutely" feel pressured, says Paul Friedman, CBS's senior vice president: "It's an enormous financial cost when the president replaces one of those prime-time hours.

The news divisions also have mixed feelings about whether they are being used.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/02/AR2009080202045.html

P.S.: Here's something more recent.

LEAKED NETWORK MEMO REVEALS: Obama Controls Your Television Set

http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jjmnolte/2009/10/15/leaked-memo-reveals-the-white-house-has-control-of-your-television-set/

.

You do realize that the government probably has more communication with those top game makers than the bottom feeders. Which if the relationship is already strong, there would be no reason to communicate with the lower level decision makers. If you know the president of a construction materials company, and you are taking on a big project are you gonna call the salesmen or the president which you know?

Also, your comparison is nothing like the Fox news situation. The networks are giving the president airtime, Fox is micromanaging news broadcast, which is by rule of thumb supposed to not be micromanaged. The stories are supposed to have no opinion and simply state the information discovered. To hold back on, kill, or modify a story to suit some ideological views, or please investors is unethical.

YWD67

October 18th, 2009, 02:22 PM

Good god!! Now don quotes from BigHollywod the sister site of BigGovernment.
Both from the Obama hating mind of Andrew Breitbart.

Wonder what happend to all the WND crap?
Oh wait maybe it is the fact that a judge this week slapped the lead WND Birther attorney with a $20,000 fine for taking of the courts time with unfounded BS. The court had to reschedule numerous other cases because the Birther attorney stated that her case was time sensative and needed an immediate hearing. Rather then prepare for the hearing the attorney spent her time on the court house steps giving TV and radio interviews.

don webb

October 19th, 2009, 06:26 AM

Also, your comparison is nothing like the Fox news situation. The networks are giving the president airtime, Fox is micromanaging news broadcast, which is by rule of thumb supposed to not be micromanaged. The stories are supposed to have no opinion and simply state the information discovered. To hold back on, kill, or modify a story to suit some ideological views, or please investors is unethical.

The White House is plum full of ethical people right?....:laugh2:

You honestly can’t think the White House or any of its staff would willingly choose to give out any information that is critical of Obama or his Administration?

The way you put it, Networks should only report on the information that is given them and not “micromanage” their coverage? But, the White House provides only one side of the story the White House side.

They control what is given out, just for that purpose as any administration would.

Anita Dunn actually criticized FOX News Sunday for fact-checking an administration official. As if Obama or his Administration is “above” any fact checking?

What Americans want is a robust competition of ideas, Obama and the White House Starff ought to be willing to go out there and mix it up with these strong conservatives on Fox , What are they afraid of?...............:dunno:

The White House refused to make any administration officials available to FOX News to talk about this or anything else even though many requests have been made.

I think this White House is dominated by Chicago- style politics, if you don't like the questions that are being asked then you try and demonize.

This is a White House engaging in its own version of the media enemies list. And it's unhelpful for the country and undignified for the president of the United States to do so. Michael Clemente, Fox News' senior vice president of news said.

The door remains open and we welcome a discussion about the facts behind the issues.

(Michael Clemente, Fox News senior vice president of news and Glenn Beck are still waiting on that call Anita?)

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/18/white-house-escalates-war-fox-news-1925819282/?test=latestnews

.

Mucci Man

October 19th, 2009, 08:05 AM

In practice, Washington political journalism has become a subdivision of the entertainment industry: its best-known practitioners are second- and third-tier TV stars, and news itself a form of politicized “infotainment.”

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2009/10/15/fox_news/

mountain_rage

October 19th, 2009, 12:16 PM

The White House is not plum full of ethical people right?....:laugh2:

You honestly can’t think the White House or any of its staff would willingly choose to give out any information that is critical of Obama or his Administration?

The way you put it, Networks should only report on the information that is given them and not “micromanage” their coverage? But, the White House provides only one side of the story the White House side.

They control what is given out, just for that purpose as any administration would.

Anita Dunn actually criticized FOX News Sunday for fact-checking an administration official. As if Obama or his Administration is “above” any fact checking?

What Americans want is a robust competition of ideas, Obama and the White House Starff ought to be willing to go out there and mix it up with these strong conservatives on Fox , What are they afraid of?...............:dunno:

The White House refused to make any administration officials available to FOX News to talk about this or anything else even though many requests have been made.

I think this White House is dominated by Chicago- style politics, if you don't like the questions that are being asked then you try and demonize.
This is a White House engaging in its own version of the media enemies list. And it's unhelpful for the country and undignified for the president of the United States to do so. Michael Clemente, Fox News' senior vice president of news said.

The door remains open and we welcome a discussion about the facts behind the issues.

(Michael Clemente, Fox News senior vice president of news and Glenn Beck are still waiting on that call Anita?)

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/18/white-house-escalates-war-fox-news-1925819282/?test=latestnews

.

That is great and all but you didn't refute my point, you side stepped it. The news is not supposed to be micromanaged. They can fact check, and I hope they do fact check their stories. This is irrelevant to the micromanaging of what does and doesn't get coverage. Or the outright censorship of stories to please investors.

Excrement_Cranium

October 19th, 2009, 02:29 PM

Quoting Fox News... to defend Fox News.

Really?

Cynicism at it's most deranged.

don webb

October 20th, 2009, 03:02 AM

That is great and all but you didn't refute my point, you side stepped it. The news is not supposed to be micromanaged. They can fact check, and I hope they do fact check their stories. This is irrelevant to the micromanaging of what does and doesn't get coverage. Or the outright censorship of stories to please investors.

I didn’t think your point was worth refuting, the answer is right in front of your face, you just can't see it. I'll try to make it more obvious for you.

Call it micromanagement or whatever you please but ideologically distorted news is present in “all media.”

There are conservative leaning and liberal leaning, far right and far left media that’s a fact, accordingly each (as you have put it) chooses what does and does not get coverage, how much or how little that is undeniable.

For the White House to single out Fox News for (as you have put it) ‘censoring” or “micromanaging” its coverage is pure Hypocrisy slapping you in the face.

Example

“Let’s not pretend that they’re a news network, the way CNN is,” White House Communications Director, Anita Dunn.

Hummm, one of CNN anchors is Anderson Cooper — he’s their star.

When the “tea party” protests got going earlier this year, Cooper interviewed David Gergen. Gergen said, “They (republicans and conservatives) still haven’t found their voice, Anderson.

Cooper replies saying: “It’s hard to talk when you’re Tea Bagging.” He said this smirkingly.

This is what Obama and the White House Administration considers real news reporting? But, of course this fits right into their agenda so why wouldnt they?

I say he and his administration is more a disgrace to the office of the president and the entire country than anything else.

Can I make it any simpler than that for you?

.

don webb

October 20th, 2009, 03:09 AM

Quoting Fox News... to defend Fox News.

Really?

Cynicism at it's most deranged.

With each passing day, more and more media members are taking shots at the Obama administration's strategy of attacking Fox News.

And on Sunday the White House escalated its offensive against Fox News by urging other news organizations to stop "following Fox" and instead join the administration's attempt to marginalize the channel.

Observers on both sides of the political aisle questioned the White House's decision to continue waging war on a news organization, saying the move carried significant political risks.

One of the best observations yet came from Marisa Guthrie of Broadcasting & Cable magazine: "[Obama] can talk to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad but he can't talk to Chris Wallace."

Democratic strategist Donna Brazile said on CNN: "I don't always agree with the White House. And on this one here I would disagree."

David Gergen, who has worked for Democratic and Republican presidents, said: "I totally agree with Donna Brazile.White House officials have gotten themselves into a fight they don't necessarily want to be in. I don't think it's in their best interest.

I mean, for goodness sakes -- you know, you engage in the debate.

"Having the spokesman do this, attack Fox, who says that Mao Zedong is one of the most influential figures in her life, was not…a small thing; it's a big thing," Bennett said on CNN. "When she stands up, in a speech to high school kids, says she's deeply influenced by Mao Zedong, that -- I mean, that is crazy."

Media columnist David Carr of the New York Times warned that the White House war on Fox "may present a genuine problem for Mr. Obama, who took great pains during the campaign to depict himself as being above the fray of over-heated partisan squabbling."

"While there is undoubtedly a visceral thrill in finally setting out after your antagonists, the history of administrations that have successfully taken on the media and won is shorter than this sentence."

He added: "The administration, by deploying official resources against a troublesome media organization, seems to have brought a knife to a gunfight."

I read somwhere else someone had said, the Media allways has the last barrel of ink, or pixels in this case, it’s a loosing battle.

Better.....??

.

mountain_rage

October 20th, 2009, 09:00 AM

With each passing day, more and more media members are taking shots at the Obama administration's strategy of attacking Fox News.

And on Sunday the White House escalated its offensive against Fox News by urging other news organizations to stop "following Fox" and instead join the administration's attempt to marginalize the channel.

Observers on both sides of the political aisle questioned the White House's decision to continue waging war on a news organization, saying the move carried significant political risks.

One of the best observations yet came from Marisa Guthrie of Broadcasting & Cable magazine: "[Obama] can talk to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad but he can't talk to Chris Wallace."

Democratic strategist Donna Brazile said on CNN: "I don't always agree with the White House. And on this one here I would disagree."

David Gergen, who has worked for Democratic and Republican presidents, said: "I totally agree with Donna Brazile.White House officials have gotten themselves into a fight they don't necessarily want to be in. I don't think it's in their best interest.

I mean, for goodness sakes -- you know, you engage in the debate.

"Having the spokesman do this, attack Fox, who says that Mao Zedong is one of the most influential figures in her life, was not…a small thing; it's a big thing," Bennett said on CNN. "When she stands up, in a speech to high school kids, says she's deeply influenced by Mao Zedong, that -- I mean, that is crazy."

Media columnist David Carr of the New York Times warned that the White House war on Fox "may present a genuine problem for Mr. Obama, who took great pains during the campaign to depict himself as being above the fray of over-heated partisan squabbling."

"While there is undoubtedly a visceral thrill in finally setting out after your antagonists, the history of administrations that have successfully taken on the media and won is shorter than this sentence."

He added: "The administration, by deploying official resources against a troublesome media organization, seems to have brought a knife to a gunfight."

I read somwhere else someone had said, the Media allways has the last barrel of ink, or pixels in this case, it’s a loosing battle.

Better.....??

.

Doesn't this contradict your statement that the other news outlets are not fair and balanced?

Excrement_Cranium

October 20th, 2009, 09:11 AM

You are assuming that the debate here follows things like... oh, I don't know... simple logic.

While I fully expect there to be spineless shudders within some of the news media, the fact is, singling out a particular outlet with particular practices?

It's drawing a line.

Conservatives have worked for well over 30 years on transforming the English language, and creating an atmosphere of distrust - all the while painting themselves as the old white knights in shining armor.

The examples show on these forum in heaps - revised conservative definitions of Liberal (always = socialism), "mainstream" media (Somehow, it isn't Fox with their vaunted 5 million viewers and superb ratings for faux news casts and op-ed television marketed as news), skepticism (somehow = oblivious and/or cynical), data, statistics (only to be trusted from conservative "watchdog" sources), logic.

The list could really go on forever. It's a campaign of hate, fear, and misinformation - and having it openly challenged is a threat.

The way to answer the threat, is to stick to the battle plan. Immunize yourself to any data that refutes the misinformation, ignore anything the opposition presents that absolutely paints your misinformation as misinformation, and when all else fails - scream (or if you are Glenn Beck, you cry).

Anything that works to keep the the machine of ignorance and lies churning.

And what happens with that?

Conservative values that all Americans could line up behind and support get lost in the shit pile.

don webb

October 20th, 2009, 02:49 PM

Doesn't this contradict your statement that the other news outlets are not fair and balanced?

No, they’ll keep their perspective, they’ve only questioned the White House's decision to continue waging war on news organizations in general, and they’re not defending or criticizing Fox’s perspective. But, who knows, they could be next?....:yup:

A few others to add to the list:

Helen Thomas is voicing more unlikely sentiments by telling the White House attack dogs to heel in the Fox News fight.

The New York Times also joined the chorus of folks telling the White House to chill.

And now, an anonymous administration aide is attacking bloggers for failing to maintain a sufficiently pro-Obama slant.

The Nation magazine writer John Nichols its Washington correspondent also says the Obama administration really needs to get over itself.

If the Fox interviewers are absurdly unfair, the American people will respond with appropriate consternation. On the other hand, if they are aggressive and pointed in their challenges, Obama will rise or fall on the quality of his responses.

His aides, if they have any faith in their man's abilities, should bend over backwards to accept some Fox interviews.

You are assuming that the debate here follows things like... oh, I don't know... simple logic.

Anything that works to keep the the machine of ignorance and lies churning.

And what happens with that?

Conservative values that all Americans could line up behind and support get lost in the shit pile.

Fox knows exactly what they’re doing along with all us other “Knuckle Dragging Neanderthal Tea-Bagging Racist.” It’s not easy but someone has to do it and it seems to be working well.

Sorry you feel you’re in the minority but it would appear most “all” conservatives are behind one main agenda and that being removing these Radical Left Wingers from power.

Exposing their campaign of hate, fear, and misinformation seems to be working well, look at the poll numbers.

Oh, did you hear FoxNews ratings are up 20% this year?...:dance:

The “Hot Line” is still open Anita…What are you afraid of?

.

mountain_rage

October 20th, 2009, 03:33 PM

This just in, the average U.S. I.Q. seems to be on the decline. It would appear that 20% of the country is getting dumber, scientist are puzzled at the discovery and hope to rectify the problem before it becomes a pandemic. In other news, tea bagging has reached an all time high, take it away Diane. 1

Mr Rodgers was an evil lefty too, damn him and his message.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29lmR_357rA&feature=related

Signa

October 20th, 2009, 08:17 PM

What levels won't Fox stoop to? I can agree with the Dr. Spock/no spanking line, because I think that has done far more damage than either of those two shows combined.

El Comandante

October 20th, 2009, 11:55 PM

YWD67

October 21st, 2009, 06:19 AM

"Republicans made up 83% of the commentators and guests....
Of those most are GW admin. White House appointies and Republican presidential candidates.
The other 17 percent consist of other Fox co-owned news medias like the WSJ.
And don't for get the more then occasional guest appearance by the owner of Fox and the WSJ, Rupert M. who adds his two cents.

don webb

October 22nd, 2009, 02:28 AM

"There is no journalism at the Fox news channel...."

"Attack politics on a TV channel..."

"Republicans made up 83% of the commentators and guests.... "

"Pandering to fear is a great motivator ..."

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8775995341064689390&q=Outfoxed#

Damn EC did you get hold of some of that Obama Flavored Kool Aid or what?

I had always thought you "teetered" the fence but Bob McChesney….??............:omfg:

Being a host on Media Matters he fits right into the Obama Socialist Crowd at the White House......:usa2:

He’s also Co editor of The Monthly Review an American Socialist Magazine, or was, he hasn’t decided if he still has time as busy as he is out playing radical activist against Capatalism.

The Monthly Review is a consistent voice for Socialism and against American Imperialism.

He speaks of Paul Sweezy its founding editor and model of a humane socialist intellectual himself as family, and of all the influence he had on his evolution as a radical activist and socialist.

He favors massive government subsidies for nonprofit journalism, vigorous antitrust litigation aimed at media conglomerates, and robust regulation of corporate broadcasters.

OutFoxed? I think not, just another Radical Socialist vibrating his lips, you did know he’s an Trombonist right....:arms:

Seems as though you’ve fallen errrrr “Jumped” over to the Leftist Socialist Party?........:smileeek:

Great quote there, at least I know where you stand now...:hump:

.

.

grab_grab_the_haddock

October 22nd, 2009, 07:55 PM

Damn EC did you get hold of some of that Obama Flavored Kool Aid or what?

I had always thought you "teetered" the fence but Bob McChesney….??............:omfg:

Being a host on Media Matters he fits right into the Obama Socialist Crowd at the White House......:usa2:

He’s also Co editor of The Monthly Review an American Socialist Magazine, or was, he hasn’t decided if he still has time as busy as he is out playing radical activist against Capatalism.

The Monthly Review is a consistent voice for Socialism and against American Imperialism.

He speaks of Paul Sweezy its founding editor and model of a humane socialist intellectual himself as family, and of all the influence he had on his evolution as a radical activist and socialist.

He favors massive government subsidies for nonprofit journalism, vigorous antitrust litigation aimed at media conglomerates, and robust regulation of corporate broadcasters.

OutFoxed? I think not, just another Radical Socialist vibrating his lips, you did know he’s an Trombonist right....:arms:

Seems as though you’ve fallen errrrr “Jumped” over to the Leftist Socialist Party?........:smileeek:

Great quote there, at least I know where you stand now...:hump:

.

.

wow, way to address the facts.

don webb

October 23rd, 2009, 05:43 AM

wow, way to address the facts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J24ih0anhYs&feature=player_embedded

grab_grab_the_haddock

October 23rd, 2009, 03:39 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J24ih0anhYs&feature=player_embedded

This is relevant to what exactly?

mountain_rage

October 23rd, 2009, 04:12 PM

don webb

October 24th, 2009, 01:10 AM

.
whats with this thing this morning?
.

don webb

October 24th, 2009, 01:13 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J24ih0anhYs&feature=player_embedded

What a tool, he uses power words to drive emotional reactions, but gives no substance to his argument. Yet people are impressed, that is how the simple minds of hardliners work, they love big words and charisma, and the heave use of AMERICAN"S!, and FREEDOM!, and FLAG!.

The emphasis is be put on the statement that “conservative talk show hosts may not talk for everybody, but they do speak for more Americans than the Laimstream media" and that’s a fact.

Your liberal brains just skipped right over it........:lol:

.

mountain_rage

October 24th, 2009, 01:17 AM

The emphasis is be put on the statement that “conservative talk show hosts may not talk for everybody, but they do speak for more Americans than the Laimstream media" and that’s a fact.

Your liberal brains just skipped right over it........:lol:

.

:haha: I don't know if we can legally consider your brain functional. Were you dropped as a child? Seriously, nothing you state ever is of your own words or opinion, its just repeating talking points spoon fed to you.

don webb

October 24th, 2009, 01:56 AM

.

All you have to do is look at the ratings........:baby:

.

Excrement_Cranium

October 24th, 2009, 08:45 AM

.

All you have to do is look at the ratings........:baby:

.

And I'll explain for the 96th time that the ratings don't reflect agreement. They reflect... hmmm... entertainment?

What would be interesting is to find out how many people in these vaunted ratings not only disagree with the drivel presented, but watch precisely because they hate it.

People are weird like that.

don webb

October 30th, 2009, 06:53 AM

And I'll explain for the 96th time that the ratings don't reflect agreement. They reflect... hmmm... entertainment?

What would be interesting is to find out how many people in these vaunted ratings not only disagree with the drivel presented, but watch precisely because they hate it.

People are weird like that.

You can explain it 96 more times but that does not make it so?

Yes, it would be interesting to know for sure, but if they hated it so much I would think they would get behind their looters and rally for them?

The “ratrings” for those looters surely do not reflect that.

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/d08b02ae4b/we-are-douchebags?rel=featured&rel_pos=3

.

Excrement_Cranium

October 30th, 2009, 08:43 AM

You can explain it 96 more times but that does not make it so?

Yes, it would be interesting to know for sure, but if they hated it so much I would think they would get behind their looters and rally for them?

The “ratrings” for those looters surely do not reflect that.

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/d08b02ae4b/we-are-douchebags?rel=featured&rel_pos=3

.

Pfff. Why shut it down, when it's much more fun to be angry and bitch about it?

Why show up at a protest, when you can bitch online, and go fishing?

It's kind of like when people try to ban or censor something for some reason, it only makes it more sought after.

Gotta watch the train wreck, even if you don't want to, and regret it afterward.