Fox Anchor Walks Off Set Over Obama

FSTargetDrone · Post by **FSTargetDrone** » 2008-03-21 08:11pm

Huffington Post

March 21, 2008 10:53 AM

Fox News' very own anchors are speaking out — and walking off — over what they perceive to be "Obama-bashing" on their network.

This morning on "Fox and Friends," Brian Kilmeade walked off the set after a dispute with his co-hosts Gretchen Carlson (she who celebrates deadly floods) and Steve Doocy over Obama's comment that his grandmother is a "typical white person." Kilmeade argued that the remark needed to be taken in context and eventually got so fed up with his co-hosts that he walked off set.

Later, "Fox News Sunday" host Chris Wallace came on the show and railed against "Fox and Friends" for what he called "Obama-bashing."

How amusing!

Video at the link.

Oni Koneko Damien · Post by **Oni Koneko Damien** » 2008-03-21 08:45pm

I don't want to give in to the hype that's building, but does anyone else have the feeling that if Obama wins this, we're going to see at least the start of some huge changes in this country for the better, the likes of which hasn't been seen since the start of the civil rights movement?

Erik von Nein · Post by **Erik von Nein** » 2008-03-21 08:53pm

The video didn't show Chris Wallace walking off the set. In fact, he says twice at the end that he "... loves (Fox and Friends) ..." I still liked his comments about the show and he was spot on about them not finishing the statement Obama made when he clarified what he meant about his grandmother, though.

CmdrWilkens · Post by **CmdrWilkens** » 2008-03-21 09:04pm

Erik von Nein wrote:The video didn't show Chris Wallace walking off the set. In fact, he says twice at the end that he "... loves (Fox and Friends) ..." I still liked his comments about the show and he was spot on about them not finishing the statement Obama made when he clarified what he meant about his grandmother, though.

It wasn't Wallace who walked off it was the other guy. Wallace was on the show after the walk off and he blasted Fox and Friends (while also claiming some conciliation) for being so over-hyped.

Erik von Nein · Post by **Erik von Nein** » 2008-03-21 09:06pm

Oh, haha. Whoops. Got those two crossed for some reason.

The Original Nex · Post by **The Original Nex** » 2008-03-21 09:21pm

I think Wallace still has a little journalist left in him that comes out every so often. Not much mind you, but I think it's there, and it peeks out sometimes.

brianeyci · Post by **brianeyci** » 2008-03-21 09:39pm

Oni Koneko Damien wrote:I don't want to give in to the hype that's building, but does anyone else have the feeling that if Obama wins this, we're going to see at least the start of some huge changes in this country for the better, the likes of which hasn't been seen since the start of the civil rights movement?

Obama needs to surround himself with good people. If he does that it'll work, if he doesn't it won't. He doesn't have anybody around him telling him that a for-profit system of healthcare doesn't work, and he still wants privae and public healthcare to coexist. Mainly because that's what Americans want. Meanwhile, he's facing the spectre of social security bankruptcy and an economic recession. There is no appetite in the country for huge civil rights movements comparable to the 60's for gays, and let's face it, there aren't enough gays for it to matter and it steps on the wrong toes.

Meanwhile he doesn't have the personal scientific or technical experience (he's a lawyer) to realise what's going to happen to America in the next 25 years with the decline of oil, and even if he wanted to start a nuclear renaissance or a program for colonization of space, there's physical bottlenecks created by stupid previous generations like limited numbers of nuclear engineers. But more importantly, there's no appetite in the American people for the kinds of changes necessary.

If he gets two terms and gets great people to be his advisors, maybe. Otherwise much of his term might be damage control, for all the problems created by his predessors. We had better hope that Obama is truly idealistic inside and wants a New Deal for Americans, because that's the only way a nuclear power plant building spree, colonization in space, and a healthcare program that truly covers every American so well that private programs go bankrupt will come to fruition. If he's the pragmatic, pessimistic type inside but is only optimistic outside to win votes, then he'll listen to his advisors who will tell him all the wrong things and he won't reach high enough.

brianeyci · Post by **brianeyci** » 2008-03-21 09:55pm

ghetto edit: I can summarize Obama's future term like this:

Hope for a huge stock market crash before January 20th, 2009. So huge that 10%+ of the American workforce is laid off. Then he'll have the political clout to do absolutely anything and consider new ideas. If it happens a year or two in, well kiss his ass goodbye.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2008-03-21 10:01pm

I am scared things will get shitty late enough it is not properly laid at Bush's feet. I almost want McCain to win through real slimy politics and then get proper fucked for the Bush-McCain war/economy/energy fuck up to end all fuck ups, so Obama can come back as a Roosevelt New Deal figure in 2012, if the alternative is him sadly getting blamed for Bush's fuck up because of stupid people and bad timing.

brianeyci · Post by **brianeyci** » 2008-03-21 10:05pm

Illuminatus Primus wrote:I am scared things will get shitty late enough it is not properly laid at Bush's feet. I almost want McCain to win through real slimy politics and then get proper fucked for the Bush-McCain war/economy/energy fuck up to end all fuck ups, so Obama can come back as a Roosevelt New Deal figure in 2012, if the alternative is him sadly getting blamed for Bush's fuck up because of stupid people and bad timing.

Well it's March.

Still ten or eleven months to go, and probably a little more than that. Americans aren't so stupid they'd blame Obama if he's only been in office for one to six months, but anything over six months and we'll see major legislative action which will just happen to coincide with the crash. It won't matter that it's not related -- the talking heads will go on and on about loss of confidence and so on, rather than laying the blame at the fundamental problems. The loss of confidence will be blamed on the ambitious social programs just about to get off the ground causing businesses to lose faith (lol) in the American tax system being overburdened by a commie jizz smoking homobortion black feminist activist administration.

So let's hope it happens soon. I'm hoping right in December, with the Christmas sales going to utter shit when nobody can buy anything anymore.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2008-03-21 10:28pm

It doesn't even have to be the real shit happening all at once already, just a bad enough spike or preview that Americans know that prosperity humping from the '80's-'90's are over and its time to realize they might be in for Greatest Generation esque challenges. Just a significant enough taste that the Republicans and conservative Democrats are discredited, and reformists can really provide a New Deal for the 21st Century that might stand a chance at helping.

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2008-03-22 02:02am

Who are these fucking imbeciles on this pathetic TV clubhouse?

RIPP_n_WIPE · Post by **RIPP_n_WIPE** » 2008-03-22 08:41am

I can't stand people who don't pay attention to the whole context of someones speech. She just rambles on about how she'd be offended without hearing the rest of what he said. They just stop at what he said.

RIPP_n_WIPE · Post by **RIPP_n_WIPE** » 2008-03-22 08:42am

EDIT: Missed the preview button. They just stop at what he said at the beginning of the phrase.

Einhander Sn0m4n · Post by **Einhander Sn0m4n** » 2008-03-22 08:45am

Illuminatus Primus wrote:It doesn't even have to be the real shit happening all at once already, just a bad enough spike or preview that Americans know that prosperity humping from the '80's-'90's are over and its time to realize they might be in for Greatest Generation esque challenges. Just a significant enough taste that the Republicans and conservative Democrats are discredited, and reformists can really provide a New Deal for the 21st Century that might stand a chance at helping.

Something like Peak Oil? I have a feeling that $6-a-gallon gas coupled with food-price inflation may very well do it. Strange, stormy weather could seal the deal as well.

Post by **Broomstick** » 2008-03-22 09:47am

Oni Koneko Damien wrote:I don't want to give in to the hype that's building, but does anyone else have the feeling that if Obama wins this, we're going to see at least the start of some huge changes in this country for the better, the likes of which hasn't been seen since the start of the civil rights movement?

Oh, yay, better changes, like in the 60's....

... am I the only one who remembers that real blood was shed to bring about some of those changes?

Not that I oppose change, I am especially in favor of change for the better, but REAL change can be painful while you're undergoing it. Just something to keep in mind. Are you ready to make some sacrifices for a better world?

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2008-03-22 09:54am

Broomstick has a point. Obama will clearly do whatever he can to improve things, but there will be blood. This is worse than a Democrat trying to change things. This is a black man doing it. This is a MUZLIM doing it. This is an EVIL MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE doing it. There's enough who believe it and who are armed that, yes, there will be trouble. Lots.

brianeyci · Post by **brianeyci** » 2008-03-22 09:57am

Well that's a good point... wishing for an economic collapse before Obama gets into office so he isn't blamed is easy to view from my perspective since I'm not an American, but the people most fucked would be the underclass.

Which is why I hope for a huge collapse of 401k, mutual funds, and all that pyramid scheme crap. If it is true that boomers are the most spoiled generation in history, then they should suffer the consequences for lack of long term thinking, not the masses of students or young workers.

No doubt the boomers will demand that the young workers or students support their social security paycheques after it goes broke. That is fine to an extent, but if the choice is to destroy the future to preserve the present, the boomers have to go. Adios, it was nice knowing you, get out of our face greatest generation (yes I know that the greatest generation is the generation before the boomers, but no doubt the generation currently going into retirement will claim all the problems now are caused by the youth.)

Post by **Broomstick** » 2008-03-22 10:08am

brianeyci wrote:Well that's a good point... wishing for an economic collapse before Obama gets into office so he isn't blamed is easy to view from my perspective since I'm not an American, but the people most fucked would be the underclass.

Which, at the moment, I happen to belong to (I'm trying to make that a temporary situation, I enjoyed being middle class)

The underclass is always fucked. The only question is how badly.

No doubt the boomers will demand that the young workers or students support their social security paycheques after it goes broke.

I have an easy, but incredibly unpopular, way to fix social security. It's very easy, and shouldn't cost any additional money. Ready for it? Here it is:

RAISE THE RETIREMENT AGE

When 65 was pegged as the age to collect most people didn't live that long. Part of social security's problem is our success at extending the human lifespan for the average person. And really, there's no damn reason a LOT of people in their 60's can't continue to work. And, of course, keep disability intact for those who really do become unable to work. Raise it to 70, even 75. >POOF!<

Want to retire before 70 or 75? No problem - YOU assemble enough resources to enable you to quit work and live off you pile o' stuff. But you can't collect the government funds until later.

You'd think that would be a compromise virtually everyone could live with - the rabid capitalists would have their reward for hard work, but there would be a safety net for those who take a different road in life than simply accumulating money for a couple decades. For some reason, though, people have a meltdown over the idea.

brianeyci · Post by **brianeyci** » 2008-03-22 10:27am

The problem is simply extending the retirement age might be forward dating the problem ten years. It'll make the crunch less severe, since they'll be more people dying and more people working, but unless American immigration increases and the retirement age is literally pushed right to the life expectancy, it won't make a difference. Many people can't work past 65 anyway, and people may live longer but that doesn't mean the quality of life is any better or that 65 year olds can do the same work as when they were 55.

Immigration isn't going to open up either because of retards who are afraid of "irreversible cultural changes" or other such crap. They want their future to be male white protestant, and there's no way that's giving to the asian invasion or Islamic terrorists. You can see it in the gerrymandering.

Canada isn't having the same problems and our pension plan is 65 as well, with only a 4.95% tax on payroll. I think the solution is to buy into the boomer's stupidity, to be honest. Offer them early retirement with a vastly reduced pension, and many will take it, thinking short term. Let them retire at 60 if they want but with a pittance, and I guarantee they'll be an immediate washout of all the eldery who are rich enough to take care of themselves but want their money immediately.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2008-03-22 10:44am

brianeyci wrote:Canada isn't having the same problems and our pension plan is 65 as well, with only a 4.95% tax on payroll. I think the solution is to buy into the boomer's stupidity, to be honest. Offer them early retirement with a vastly reduced pension, and many will take it, thinking short term. Let them retire at 60 if they want but with a pittance, and I guarantee they'll be an immediate washout of all the eldery who are rich enough to take care of themselves but want their money immediately.

Actually, we are having the same problems. Those problems are future planning problems, not present-day problems, and we are looking at serious problems funding our social programs down the road if we don't raise the retirement age.

The problems the Americans are experiencing right now are due to their culture of debt and irresponsibility, not age demographics. Both Canada and the US (and many other countries) are facing a serious problem of age demographics down the road.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2008-03-22 10:54am

brianeyci wrote:
Canada isn't having the same problems and our pension plan is 65 as well, with only a 4.95% tax on payroll. I think the solution is to buy into the boomer's stupidity, to be honest. Offer them early retirement with a vastly reduced pension, and many will take it, thinking short term. Let them retire at 60 if they want but with a pittance, and I guarantee they'll be an immediate washout of all the eldery who are rich enough to take care of themselves but want their money immediately.

There's been talk of CPP ceasing to exist thanks to the aging population and the governments inability to actually invest the money like they did with the public service pension. At some point there won't be enough people working to pay for those on CPP.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2008-03-22 11:01am

brianeyci wrote:The problem is simply extending the retirement age might be forward dating the problem ten years. It'll make the crunch less severe, since they'll be more people dying and more people working, but unless American immigration increases and the retirement age is literally pushed right to the life expectancy, it won't make a difference. Many people can't work past 65 anyway, and people may live longer but that doesn't mean the quality of life is any better or that 65 year olds can do the same work as when they were 55.

Brianeyci, the average life expectancy is 72(Male) 75(Female), if we raise Social Security to 70 your going to be reducing the average payout by 60%, that's not going to forward date the problem, that's going to cut costs by a minimum of 40% across the board. If life expectancy is such that people die before they collect then we've fixed the problem(So to speak) and if not we've not done simply gotten ten years with, we've gotten effectively thirty years worth of money because Social Security is still collecting money.

Think of it in pure money terms
Lets say social security pays out 95$ a year to people, and makes 100$ a year off taxes. Now lets say the payments will go up by a 1$ a year for twenty years then fall off as people die.

If you can arrange things so you don't have to pay half your bills for ten years then you have 500$ sitting around to make up that 1$(Now 10$) difference when it finally hits in full ten years from now.

The baby-boomers won't last forever, if we can manage twenty four years then the people paying into the system will once again be great enough by people paid by the system to balance out and have extra sitting around.

Post by **Broomstick** » 2008-03-22 11:07am

brianeyci wrote:The problem is simply extending the retirement age might be forward dating the problem ten years.

No, it won't, because more people will die before retiring, and people won't live so many years after they retire.

but unless American immigration increases and the retirement age is literally pushed right to the life expectancy

But that WAS the marker when social security was first started - it was deliberately put near the end of expected life.

Many people can't work past 65 anyway

There is no minimum age on the disability program, which they can apply for if they can not work (my Other Half is doing just that, at the age of 50)

and people may live longer but that doesn't mean the quality of life is any better

Social security was intended to keep the elderly from being completely destitute, it was never intended to guarantee an upper middle-class lifestyle, or even a middle-middle class lifestyle. It was intended to make sure people would have basic housing and food, not luxuries.

[quoe]or that 65 year olds can do the same work as when they were 55.[/quote]
I'm in my 40's and can't do work I could do in my 20's - so what? You have to change what you're doing? Most people do that 3-4 times ANYWAY over their working life.

Immigration isn't going to open up either because of retards who are afraid of "irreversible cultural changes" or other such crap. They want their future to be male white protestant

Too late, for the US. It's gonna happen.

I think the solution is to buy into the boomer's stupidity, to be honest. Offer them early retirement with a vastly reduced pension, and many will take it, thinking short term. Let them retire at 60 if they want but with a pittance, and I guarantee they'll be an immediate washout of all the eldery who are rich enough to take care of themselves but want their money immediately.

That option is already in place in the US, and has been for years. You can retire early and collect reduced social security at, if I recall correctly, 62 RIGHT NOW. Some people take it, some don't. There is also the fact that if you delay retirement in the US and don't start collecting until 70 you will get MORE per month. Some people do this, some don't.

Personally, I think that if you are ABLE to work you SHOULD work, no mater how old you are. Some people, of course, will be a mess by 40. Others will maintain vigor into their 80's or, rarely, even later.

Post by **Coyote** » 2008-03-22 12:02pm

Dude, if you're 60, or even 40, and still doing the work of your 20's, that means you haven't been promoted. You may be a healthy buck, but you're also a dud. By the time you get older, you're managing workers because of your experience, not being the workers.

OTOH, extending the retirement age means that a lot of top-post positions will be filled (especially with the number of Baby Boomers), and so those young guys in their 20's may well end up staying in their positions because there's no upward mobility. Right now a workforce has upward mobility because of death & retirement; close off the 'retirement' side of things and that leaves only death-- which is becoming rarer and rarer (in a way) due to increased safety standards and medicine.

True, a stagnant job is better than no job at all, but could there potentially be future where old geezers are clogging the system with multiply-redundant job posts to keep them busy, while increasing numbers of school graduates just aren't hired to begin with because the folks before them in their 20's and 30's are still in the entry-level jobs?