"News" people... right....

I agree with this blogger. Faux news went way over the line on this supposed "political" debate.

Of all the things Fox goes "over the line" on, you pick this?

it isn't just Fox that skews a viewpoint, it's ALL the news organizations that do it. They aren't about news anymore, they are all about agendas and propoganda.

Hmmm...this blogger is clearly biased, as is CelticDragon. No big surprise there. But Cavuto is actually defending Dr. Benjamin throughout the interview. For example, after this jerk attacked her weight:

CAVUTO: I'm telling you — well, OK, let's say she is what you say she is. She would still make a darn good surgeon general. We will maybe have someone with more empathy for the obesity epidemic in this country.

Here's a link to the transcript of the interview. Can you honestly tell me that Cavuto was trashing Dr. Benjamin?

Click Here

I find it horribly unprofessional that they would even allow someone on there to comment on her weight, of all things. Just putting that attitude forth is taking the subject to tabloid style journalism, which really isn't journalism so much as it's sensationalism. The woman isn't even fat! It's just the epitome of how the whole channel is more entertainment than anything else. Uncle Walter is rolling in his grave, I just know it.

CelticDragon wrote:

I find it horribly unprofessional that they would even allow someone on there to comment on her weight, of all things. Just putting that attitude forth is taking the subject to tabloid style journalism, which really isn't journalism so much as it's sensationalism. The woman isn't even fat! It's just the epitome of how the whole channel is more entertainment than anything else. Uncle Walter is rolling in his grave, I just know it.

Gee, here's the ABC News story on the same subject.

Critics Slam Overweight Surgeon General Pick, Regina Benjamin

I thought this comment summed things up nicely:

Quote :

Republicans.....way to get female voters
Attack Dr. Benjamin on the basis of her size. Maybe you could attack older voters for wrinkles. You pretty well turned off every Latino/a voter over Sonia Sotomayor with your wise Latina wisecracks, and your rude interuption of her with Ricky Ricardo schtick. Any gorilla or monkey reference to Michelle Obama, you haven't used, was obviously based on time restraints, not for lack of trying.

Where do you folks find the time to cheat on your wives, with all these clever strategy meetings going on, is beyond me.

As usual, Republicans are their own worst enemies.

News has been slow lately while waiting for the Administration to implode.

While the health habits of a potential Surgeon General are a legit thing to question, I don't think this woman is going to be doing public service commercials about obesity while stuffing herself with Big Macs and KFC. I see no reason a heavy person can't do the job.

Sonia Sotomayor on the other hand has demonstrated she defends putting race quotas above putting the most qualified person in the position of saving lives and property. Just this June the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that New Haven violated a landmark civil rights law when the city threw out the results of a promotions exam after it was determined that none of the black firefighters who took the test scored well enough to be promoted.

Sotomayor pointed out that the 4 liberal judges on the SC agreed with her though, which proves she has a biased liberal agenda. The Supreme Court is supposed to rule by the law, not by political or social agendas. That bitch has no business ever being in a judges robes again.

Did you ever see C. Everett Koop??? Not exactly a svelte man.

CelticDragon wrote:

Did you ever see C. Everett Koop??? Not exactly a svelte man.

You still haven't responded to the fact that Cavuto was defending her, not criticizing her. And you haven't stated whether ABC News covering the same story makes them a sensationalist tabloid, as you called Fox. Could it be that ABC generally supports the same political views that you espouse? Could it be that you are actually the biased one in this and feel the need to criticize Fox for everything, whether it's legitimate or not?

Koop had that Abe Lincoln beard going on

May be DR PHIL could be the sturgeon general

I always thought Joycelyn Elders got unfairly trashed for suggesting teaching masturbation to kids as a way to help prevent pregnancy and disease. They threw her out and what did we get from the schools instead? We got this.....

Hey kids, get off that teeter totter and come get some condoms and pills at the nurses office so you can have real fun. And we won't tell mom and dad either cause we know way more than your parents do and 12 year olds need their sexual privacy. But do remember to have your mommy sign this paper so we can give you an aspirin.

Yeah, that Joycelyn Elders was quite the evil woman suggesting schools promote masturbation.

Dr. Phil is just a friggin dickhead..he can %^^%%^ off

Dr. Phil is just a friggin dickhead..he can %^^%%^ off

Blackie Kuhn wrote:

Dr. Phil is just a friggin dickhead..he can %^^%%^ off

I believe his appropriate title is "Oprah's Bitch".

t.o.o. wrote:

You still haven't responded to the fact that Cavuto was defending her, not criticizing her. And you haven't stated whether ABC News covering the same story makes them a sensationalist tabloid, as you called Fox. Could it be that ABC generally supports the same political views that you espouse? Could it be that you are actually the biased one in this and feel the need to criticize Fox for everything, whether it's legitimate or not?

That's because the post was about how I couldn't believe they chose the other "gentleman" involved the the "debate." Irresponsible journalism. To simply report that there are people bringing up her weight, while in bad taste, is not tabloid journalism. Sensationalizing it IS.

CelticDragon wrote:

t.o.o. wrote:

You still haven't responded to the fact that Cavuto was defending her, not criticizing her. And you haven't stated whether ABC News covering the same story makes them a sensationalist tabloid, as you called Fox. Could it be that ABC generally supports the same political views that you espouse? Could it be that you are actually the biased one in this and feel the need to criticize Fox for everything, whether it's legitimate or not?

That's because the post was about how I couldn't believe they chose the other "gentleman" involved the the "debate." Irresponsible journalism. To simply report that there are people bringing up her weight, while in bad taste, is not tabloid journalism. Sensationalizing it IS.

You call it sensationalizing when it's on a program that airs at 4:00 pm ET (3:00 here)and the host actually opposes the view of the guest? Is it okay to just let the guy issue his press releases and make speeches without being challenged?

If you want to find tabloid journalism, I have one name for you: Nancy Grace.

CelticDragon wrote:

To simply report that there are people bringing up her weight, while in bad taste, is not tabloid journalism. Sensationalizing it IS.

While I agree that her having some extra pounds isn't something she should be rejected for, I can't agree that it's bad taste to bring it up. If a potential Surgeon General had a smoking habit, or had a couple drinks in the evenings, or used herbal remedies, or was diabetic, or on dialysis, I would not consider it "bad taste" to mention it.

Anything someone in that position does or is affected by that involves their health and how they deal with it can answer alot about how serious that individual is about staying healthy. How they deal with their own health issues is very appropriate to discuss as it could reflect on their decisions for others. In years past doctors endorsed certain brands of cigarettes as being less bad or even the "healthy choice". Any public official involved in the welfare of the nation should expect every aspect of their personal life to be questioned.

Ratzilla wrote:

CelticDragon wrote:

To simply report that there are people bringing up her weight, while in bad taste, is not tabloid journalism. Sensationalizing it IS.

While I agree that her having some extra pounds isn't something she should be rejected for, I can't agree that it's bad taste to bring it up. If a potential Surgeon General had a smoking habit, or had a couple drinks in the evenings, or used herbal remedies, or was diabetic, or on dialysis, I would not consider it "bad taste" to mention it.

Anything someone in that position does or is affected by that involves their health and how they deal with it can answer alot about how serious that individual is about staying healthy. How they deal with their own health issues is very appropriate to discuss as it could reflect on their decisions for others. In years past doctors endorsed certain brands of cigarettes as being less bad or even the "healthy choice". Any public official involved in the welfare of the nation should expect every aspect of their personal life to be questioned.

So why has it never been an issue until now?

CelticDragon wrote:

Ratzilla wrote:

CelticDragon wrote:

To simply report that there are people bringing up her weight, while in bad taste, is not tabloid journalism. Sensationalizing it IS.

While I agree that her having some extra pounds isn't something she should be rejected for, I can't agree that it's bad taste to bring it up. If a potential Surgeon General had a smoking habit, or had a couple drinks in the evenings, or used herbal remedies, or was diabetic, or on dialysis, I would not consider it "bad taste" to mention it.

Anything someone in that position does or is affected by that involves their health and how they deal with it can answer alot about how serious that individual is about staying healthy. How they deal with their own health issues is very appropriate to discuss as it could reflect on their decisions for others. In years past doctors endorsed certain brands of cigarettes as being less bad or even the "healthy choice". Any public official involved in the welfare of the nation should expect every aspect of their personal life to be questioned.

So why has it never been an issue until now?

Because the "fat police" haven't been around for that long. Neil Cavuto deals with these issues all the time. He has been battling the people who want restaurants to list nutritional info on their menus for several years. He goes after it from a business point of view. He has a personal interest in health issues because he's a cancer survivor and has multiple sclerosis. Instead of giving up and becoming just another victim, he has kept on and is currently Vice President of Business News at Fox News Channel and Senior Vice President & Managing Editor of Business News for Fox Business Network.

CelticDragon wrote:

So why has it never been an issue until now?

Well since it was the liberals who wanted this no red meat, rice cakes, bottled water, light beer, seaweed sandwich society I'd say you opened the door yourselves and forgot to put up the "No Conservatives Welcome" sign.

And I seem to remember lots of liberals talking about Limbaugh being fat, and he wasn't even up for a position in public health service.

The self-appointed health cops have had great success in cutting down on the number of people who smoke. They are continuing to press forward on that agenda making it illegal to smoke anywhere, but OK to possess - unlit. MADD is an offshoot of this wide branching group. I don't need to tell you about what they have accomplished. Fat is the new evil. It has to be brought out into the open so they can more easily attack it. We have seen the headlines about the fat epidemic. We have seen cities declared the fattest in America.
Now that it becoming a mainstream topic expect it to get worse than a mere mention of being overweight. Soon fat people will be as evil as a drunk driver. They will be shunned like those smelly smokers. Of course, let's not forget the obligatory fat tax on sodas and junk food. It has already been mentioned - and poorly received. It will be presented again, or inserted into a health bill that nobody reads.
The word fat may insult you now, but trust me. The obedient media will spin it out so often that everybody will soon join the fat attack. Is it just and fair? NO. But that is how the business of 'making everybody like me' is done now days. It is a shameful way to do business, but it is the new norm. A master of this technique is in a high position in America.

If I can't eat high fat big time carb meals with liquor,How the hell am I gonna survive?

Ratzilla wrote:

CelticDragon wrote:

So why has it never been an issue until now?

Well since it was the liberals who wanted this no red meat, rice cakes, bottled water, light beer, seaweed sandwich society I'd say you opened the door yourselves and forgot to put up the "No Conservatives Welcome" sign.

And I seem to remember lots of liberals talking about Limbaugh being fat, and he wasn't even up for a position in public health service.

That is one of the absolute weirdest comments you've made in a while. It reminds me of my daughter's brand of logic.

Blackie Kuhn wrote:

If I can't eat high fat big time carb meals with liquor,How the hell am I gonna survive?

You won't. None of us will

CelticDragon wrote:

Ratzilla wrote:

CelticDragon wrote:

So why has it never been an issue until now?

Well since it was the liberals who wanted this no red meat, rice cakes, bottled water, light beer, seaweed sandwich society I'd say you opened the door yourselves and forgot to put up the "No Conservatives Welcome" sign.

And I seem to remember lots of liberals talking about Limbaugh being fat, and he wasn't even up for a position in public health service.

That is one of the absolute weirdest comments you've made in a while. It reminds me of my daughter's brand of logic.

I'm sure everyone else understood it just fine. The logic is perfectly clear. It sure wasn't the beef and pork eating conservatives who started the anti-fat thing. So now when they come back and use it to attack a liberal you shouldn't whine.

Yeah, because all conservatives are beer and whiskey guzzling, gun toting, money grubbing, power hungry hypocrites that spout bible verses and patriotic rhetoric ever time you ask a question they don't like.

Can it. We all know, or should, that conservatives and liberals come in every shape, size, and attitude.

Beer,whiskey,guns and money!!!!!! Hell Yeah!

Ratzilla wrote:

It sure wasn't the beef and pork eating conservatives who started the anti-fat thing.

CelticDragon wrote:

Yeah, because all conservatives are beer and whiskey guzzling, gun toting, money grubbing, power hungry hypocrites that spout bible verses and patriotic rhetoric ever time you ask a question they don't like.

Can it. We all know, or should, that conservatives and liberals come in every shape, size, and attitude.

Quite a jump from my statement to yours. Good job too. Your statement completely sidetracked away from eating habits and just insulted conservatives.

I'll be the first to admit that there's an abundance of liberals that are alcohol guzzling, power hungry, money grubbing, hypocrites. And alot of em eat like friggin pigs too. But most of the beef and pork ranchers I know aren't liberals, and most I know who preach the vegetarian lifestyle are in no way conservatives.


You can have all the hissy fits you want, but it's PETA, the super liberal animal rights group that's attacking another super liberal Michael Moore for being fat. The beef and pork producers are just hoping he eats enough to die.

And once again the wind rushes over your head as you utterly miss the point.

CelticDragon wrote:

And once again the wind rushes over your head as you utterly miss the point.

As opposed to the air rushing through yours.

Maybe you should try and tell me what your hidden point is here since I don't care to play juvenile guessing games. You bitched because you wanted to know why a persons weight is an issue, so I told you where the anti-fat campaigns came from and you bitch because it wasn't the answer you wanted to hear.

Ratzilla wrote:

CelticDragon wrote:

And once again the wind rushes over your head as you utterly miss the point.

As opposed to the air rushing through yours.

Maybe you should try and tell me what your hidden point is here since I don't care to play juvenile guessing games. You bitched because you wanted to know why a persons weight is an issue, so I told you where the anti-fat campaigns came from and you bitch because it wasn't the answer you wanted to hear.

hell, you know she wanted to blame Bush.

Naw, not Bush. He's a cattle man so he should be happy when he sees fluffy folk.

Actually the whole anti-fat thing began with the idea of reducing heart disease and other disorders related to obesity. The media jumped all over it and decided everyone needed to diet and fashion models became anorexic sticks.

I didn't think I had to spell it out in simple words. The point was that everyone is different. Most of your new "liberals" are discontented Republicans who are leaving the party in droves because it's not responsive to the needs of an ever changing world. Therefore, your belief that all liberals are "no red meat, rice cakes, bottled water, light beer, seaweed sandwich society" is not correct. Most have more respect for how a person does a job and what qualifications they have than what their outer appearance may be. That is not to say there aren't those who are self righteous jerks, just as we see every day on the conservative side.

Really, I'm getting sick of the nasty, bitchy, Chicken Little Republicans. Even when Bush was at his worst, most liberals held off on the kind of comments coming out of the conservative "everyman" these days. Sorry, but the bitterness is doing you more damage than good.

How soon we forget.

I'm not a conservative, I'm an independant and would probably describe myself Libertarian Constitutionalist. You asked where this came from. I gave answers. The anti-fat thing spreads across all types now, but in it's early days it was the vegetarian/health nuts of liberal circles who first took the whole thing out of context from what the medical community intended.

The medical community wanted us to become more concerned with our health and linked obesity to a range of health problems. From there it was decided that healthy meant thin and the full figured model lost favor for the Twiggy look, and the Bohemian and hippy counter cultures along with Hollywood types began pushing the philosophy of vegetarianism and pureness of body and mind.

Then diet mania began. From there the talk shows have now turned it around again and made the fat person the victim. (Everyone wanted on the victim wagon after all) Since the talk shows are predominately of a liberal slant that makes it look like liberals are the pro-fat acceptance group, but it was the liberal health and fashion fads decades ago that started modern anti-fat ideals to begin with.

I'm not saying that it's liberals who are questioning the fitness of this woman for Surgeon General, just that there might never have been an anti-fat movement to this degree had they not taken the medical community's be healthy campaign as saying skinny is beautiful then. Now do you get my point?

Oh, I almost forgot to reply to your comment about how sweet and understanding liberals are. ROTFLMAO!!!!!

Yahoo News wrote:

A new non-partisan study done by the Urban Institute and the University of Virginia, claims that a "fat tax"—adding a tax to fattening, unhealthy foods—would not only curb obesity by discouraging people from buying and consuming these types of foods, but would also generate a good amount of revenue for the government. According to the study, implementing a 10% tax on fatty foods could raise $522 billion over the next 10 years, and a 20% tax could raise $937 billion.

That statement is stupid. A fat tax will generate tax dollars by discouraging the public from buying things fatty and unhealthy??

Ratzilla wrote:

Yahoo News wrote:

A new non-partisan study done by the Urban Institute and the University of Virginia, claims that a "fat tax"—adding a tax to fattening, unhealthy foods—would not only curb obesity by discouraging people from buying and consuming these types of foods, but would also generate a good amount of revenue for the government. According to the study, implementing a 10% tax on fatty foods could raise $522 billion over the next 10 years, and a 20% tax could raise $937 billion.

That statement is stupid. A fat tax will generate tax dollars by discouraging the public from buying things fatty and unhealthy??

but I am fatty and healthy

Ratzilla wrote:

Yahoo News wrote:

A new non-partisan study done by the Urban Institute and the University of Virginia, claims that a "fat tax"—adding a tax to fattening, unhealthy foods—would not only curb obesity by discouraging people from buying and consuming these types of foods, but would also generate a good amount of revenue for the government. According to the study, implementing a 10% tax on fatty foods could raise $522 billion over the next 10 years, and a 20% tax could raise $937 billion.

That statement is stupid. A fat tax will generate tax dollars by discouraging the public from buying things fatty and unhealthy??

Just like the tax on smokes does the same.

You have to get 2:36 into this clip for the good part.

I like how Bloomburg says criminals could get conceal carry permits and take hidden guns everywhere. Guess what? When conceal carry isn't legal the criminals are usually the "only" ones carrying hidden weapons. Sure alot of idiots in the world.

Ratzilla wrote:

Sure alot of idiots in the world.

That's what the politicians are counting on.

The Other One wrote:

I have one name for you: Nancy Grace.

your only redeeming quality. coming from a race of grifters, rounders and money changers i would think you'd find her respectful selling her soul for the fiduciary gain... but lol for Yahweh's love and how it manifests itself... you do have some sense...

Nancy Grace = female Geraldo