This is the kind of thing one would expect on FOX or MSNBC, cable stations that cater to their respective political base.
Burnett just seems too arrogant for her own purpose and very wrong for CNN, a formerly respected news source which she is now dragging down to the level of Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin and Lou Dobbs once again.

"Erin Burnett suggested that President Obama was pandering to gun owners by suggesting that he and his guests (but not his daughters) go skeet shooting at Camp David all the time.
She even challenged him to prove it with a picture.
Of course he meant "we" to include him (and he has done that there) AND other guests, but as he said, not his daughters. And of course he doesn't personally do it all the time. He is our President and is too busy to shoot clay pigeons "all the time." So what was this beyatch Erin Burnett's point?

This is the kind of thing one would expect on FOX or MSNBC, cable stations that cater to their respective political base.
Burnett just seems too arrogant for her own purpose and very wrong for CNN, a formerly respected news source which she is now dragging down to the level of Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin and Lou Dobbs once again."------------------------My, my, my so only FOX and MSNBC are supposed to actually be reporting the truth?
What an odd turn of events, of course referring to a women who reports on the truth a female dog, no matter to one tries to coyly spell it, is rather pathetic tactic of a sexist twit.

Now what upset you?
Oh yes, she caught the president telling another lie, or maybe just exaggerated BS.
Shame, shame, shame how dare any news person actually expose the Obama presidency for using street hustler half-truth tactics.

Bad girl, bad girl!!!!

Believe it or not, when I'm at the gym I watch FOX with Shepard Smith rather than Erin on CNN. If I'm there long enough I switch back over to Anderson. Could not stand Erin from day one.

I suspect the person who wrote about his day was not given particulars just the same as other "quiet" days the President rarely enjoys.

Nonetheless the picture shows him doing what he said he does......now I suppose you are going to say its photo shopped.

Our president should sharpen his shooting skills. You never know when he'll engage in a firefight with a terrorist.

Lily, do you have proof that Erin's career is due to her good looks? Or are you judging her because you like to hate on those you disagree with? If you have no proof, don't respond.

.......but clearly you and Bill have a different view as is your right.

During the first term, the "Birthers" dominated this sad and sordid landscape, but in recent weeks we've seen the rapid rise and fall of the "Benghazi Flu" and now -- oh so briefly - "Skeet-Gate."

Blink and you could have missed it. "Skeet-Gate" was the far-right-wing reaction to an interview in last week's re-launched New Republic in which the president was asked whether he'd ever shot a gun. He replied, "Yes, in fact, up at Camp David, we do skeet shooting all the time."

I can understand why some people were surprised at the answer - it reflects the original impulse to ask the question. With a gun debate raging, the president hasn't often been seen in the sort of ritualistic duck-hunting poses that Democratic politicians often submit to the press as proof that they aren't anti-gun in general.

But the right-wing reaction was predictable: President Obama must be lying.

This is the impulse when you've bought wholesale into the demonization of this Democratic president. There is no assumption of goodwill or even the minimum amount of credulity that is normally extended to a fellow citizen, let alone to a twice-elected president. Common sense is set aside: if a skeet-shooting range is in place at Camp David, Obama must have ordered it destroyed or let it gather dust for ideological reasons. The idea that he might actually enjoy occasionally shooting clay pigeons as sport just doesn't fit the mental script that sees him as rabidly anti-gun and considers the Obamas something other than full-fledged Americans.

This standard even falls short of President Reagan's approach to the Soviets - "trust, but verify." There is no trust and when verification arrives, that is doubted as well - accompanied by the now-ritualistic blaming of the media and playing the victim.

Lying us into a tragic war - no big deal. Lying about secret arms deals - he's an icon.

Lying about skeet-shooting - scandalous!! Inquiries must be made! Special prosecutor!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11one!!

But, since skeet shooting can be a lot of fun, my guess is he's tried it a few times.

And in any event, none of this has much to do with being the guy who has now made 4 separate trips to talk with the survivors and parents of gun massacres, and wants to see if we, as a country, can do something to lower the chances of more such events.

Heads are going to a'splode if the white house releases pics of Michelle and the kids out shooting skeet.

Of course appearance is a large part of selecting any on-air television personality. Based on her body of work at CNBC and CNN, perhaps appearance was weighed too heavily in her selection for her current position.

In any event, Burnett is free to disagree but that isn't the point here. The point is that CNN was formerly a dedicated 24 hour news channel that one could rely on for relatively unbiased news reporting. Ted Turner then sold the company and it has gone through a lot of changes since then. At some point, a corporate decision was made to start down a different path, primarily to compete with FOX, who was draining off many of its viewers. In response they started becoming more partisan in their hires and in their programming.

Erin Burnett is a Wall Street proponent from CNBC and a partisan Republican on the lines of Larry Kudlow. If she was working for CNBC or Fox, I would have no problem with that. However there are people who would prefer that CNN return to its roots as a neutral News source without the heavy partisanship, and in her case, ugly sarcasm.

The reason I think lily, myself and others are reacting to Burnett is that her partisan sarcasm (and you would understand this) and anti-Obama rants have become too caustic and annoying for some of us to take. Does CNN really want to alienate Democratic voters and turn CNN into FOX II channel?

And how is Obama's skeet shooting anything but a diversion from the issues of gun control and a side swipe against the President for making reasonable suggestion for gun legislation?

So now we have the paranoid extremist gun clingers questioning whether Obama has ever shot skeet? He shot skeet with the Marines at Camp David, That's not good enough tough for some. Nope, where is his birth certificate his high school, college and law school transcripts, right?

By the way, the President actually looks good in whatever sport he occasionally participates in.

He needs to shoot someone in the face.

That way the NRA and rich elites will rally to his side, just like last time a rich elite shot someone in the face while skeeting.

Erin's wallstreet background , similar to Larry Kudlow(another I can't stand), will be helping turn CNN in to Fox 2. Okay with me. I only watch MSNBC anyway.

Ditto. I always rather liked Daryn Kagan. Jon Klein sure screwed CNN up but good.

-Ron-

We have read all the articles of news bias, we have read
all the articles of the hiring of only liberals, our
tv sitcoms are written by anything goes liberals, writing
their slant and most times their lack of morals into the story line.

For goodness sakes liberals....lighten up and let the
Conservatives have a few anchors and or at least one
network outlet that doesn't photoshop, edit out the negative and doesn't drool and have leg tingles over Obama.

Be that as it may, (don't you love old fashioned terms?) Erin gave the Pres. a perfect lead in to a plausible tale about participation in a gentleman's sport.

For goodness sakes liberals....lighten up and let the
Conservatives have a few anchors and or at least one
network outlet that doesn't photoshop, edit out the negative and doesn't drool and have leg tingles over Obama.

What's on your intolerance list for Republicans?

The whole point is that news anchors are not supposed to give any hints whether they are liberal or conservative. At least the reputable ones don't.

Like Dan Rather. or Ted Koppel.

Your words eerily remind me of things I have heard elsewhere about who runs the news, entertainment, etc.

Not that he MUST be, but that he was about that pic, for sure. ANYONE who's fired a shotgun could see that. You can bet if Obama was really firing in that pic, it's be his LAST round for the evening, because the way he's got it tucked his shoulder would be bruised hardcore from the bottom point of the butt hitting it.

As for the rest of it, it can be explained away (no blur- high speed camera, aiming low- shooting at sporting clays, sometimes erroneously referred to as shooting skeet, or looking to hit the skeet right out of the trap) but the butt on the shoulder is a dead giveaway.

"One can see the fever swamps are a-foamin' over skeet-gate, desperate to find anything to stain the Kenyan socialist muzzy (fill in your preferred tic)."

What a description of the president. Terrible.

---------------------

The remarks about CNN are too funny. Soon we will hear about "Faux" News and...what will the liberals call CNN? I can't wait to hear about it.

I'm beginning to wonder (as in Stevie) if when registering as a democrat, you should be issued a white cane with a red tip.

Faux indignation. You and the people you promote and support have said worse.

CNN is restructuring with a new boss and new faces so you will have to wait a little while longer to see who is in and who is out.

False.

False.

What is your opinion of people who post falsehoods here?

What's it to ya?

"What is your opinion of people who post falsehoods here?"

What's it to ya?

I'm interested to learn what a conservative here thinks about people who post falsehoods.

Liar-- no matter WHAT it's about.

Of course you are not. You are interested in yourself. Have a good time ;D

"I'm interested to learn what a conservative here thinks"
Liar-- no matter WHAT it's about.

You're mistaken, Bill. I am very interested in this question.

"I'm interested to learn what a conservative here thinks about people who post falsehoods."

Of course you are not. You are interested in yourself. Have a good time ;D

Oh, but I am. But conservatives seem afraid to address this question, for some reason.

The only interest you have is tearing into any conservative you can, for WHATEVER REASON you can. End of story. You have no interest in what any of us have to say past that.

You are mistaken again, Bill. It is very, very difficult to make progress when some people dismiss the very concept of truth because it might cause them to have to re-examine the roots of their convictions. I am interested in exploring why that is. But so far, conservatives here seem terrified of discussing the issue.

Creepy...

I stand by my statement.

People can form their own opinion(or not) if they haven't done so already. Your posts are out there for anyone to see.

Factoman-- the truth, or what you want to twist it into? I'm good with truth. Whatever you're spewing, you can keep it. If you can't attack he message, you go after the messenger. When that's not good enough, you hit grammar, puncuation, spelling-- whatever it takes to make you feel like you've "won" the argument. That's not looking for the truth. That's win by attrition, as opposed to looking to have an honest discussion, which you wouldn't know if it bit you on the a$$.

Wrong agian, Bill, and you continue to evade the central issue with these digressions. Why is it nearly impossible for conservatives here to admit it when they post falsehoods? Why won't they retract them? Why do they refuse to re-evaluated their positions when the facts turn out to be different from what they had thought? Why is the underlying root of this syndrome so deep-seated, so fundamental, that the import of the specific issue doesn't matter -- even as trivial a matter as a misspelling must be defended (and then the issue fled from) even when the truth becomes objectively proven? Why are conservatives afraid of even offering an opinion on dishonesty, despite attempting to accuse their opponents of it? What is the source of this profound aversion to reality?

Conversely when a liberal is proven wrong they admit they were wrong and learn something.

There are exceptions of course to both sides. But I haven't seen a single conservative admit they were wrong here.

No it probably didn't occur to you because you only hear what you want to hear as you've proven over and over again.

It's genetic, a function of their basic brain structure. It is why they project the phrase 'librulizm is a mentul disease".

When asked whether or not he's ever fired a gun he could have just said something like "No, I've never needed to", if that was the case. It seems unlikely that he would fabricate a skeet shooting adventure...

He has a different culture which diesn't include guns and I am happy to say I'm with him all the way.

I'm guessing with a certain mindset, if Obama would allow the release of a faked birth certificate, he'll allow the release of a faked photo of him shooting a gun.

Bottom line, you can't debate with reactionaries about anything with (who used the term on here?) 'truthiness' in it.

-Ron-

There are exceptions of course to both sides. But I haven't seen a single conservative admit they were wrong here.

Bill himself did admit he had posted the wrong list of top states in overall homicide rate, for which he deserves credit.

However, I have been disappointed by his refusal to take the next logical step, which would be to re-evaluate the conclusion he had reached based on the faulty data.

OK, I stand corrected.

There, I admitted I was wrong.

Hmmm...nothing happened...the world didn't end...and I learned that Bill is capable, sometimes, of admitting error. Learning is good.

Maybe the conservatives should give it a try more often. They might actually get used to dealing in truth and the world would be a better place.

The problem is that some liberals too often shade the truth or make things up out of whole cloth because they think it is for the "higher good" or "the cause". Sort of like the Zimmerman tape editing, once it becomes common place, it seems like it must be the truth to them.

Anyone who does this here should be called on it and they should should be expected to retract and correct themselves. Do you agree?

The President was asked in an interview if he had ever fired a gun. He responded he had and that he often enjoyed skeet shooting at Camp David. No sooner had he'd said that than some of the pro gun folk demanded proof accusing him of pandering to gun owners.

At first the WH refused to release the photos saying that the time he spent with friends and family was personal. The heat continued and the WH decided to put an end to the silliness by producing photos.

Now that those who demanded proof and have the photo.....it must be a fake and the President is lying about skeet shooting.....give me a flippin' break.

Side note...great arms!

Like I said -- the lengths conservatives will go to embarrass themselves never fails to amaze.

Skeet-gate! What next? Really, do we have to endure 4 more years of this nonsense. You people lost. Because of this exact kind of craziness. Get over it.

But as a parting shot (pun intended), John H. Josselyn, legislative vice president for the Associated Gun Clubs of Baltimore Inc. says "If the president were actually shooting on a skeet or trap range*, he would have been wearing a belt with a shell bag or a shooting vest."

*You mean somewhere "real" and not at Camp David? Guess he forgot his gear back at the White House and had to rely on an aid to hand him a shell or two. But to Fox that's proof positive it's a staged photo.

No wonder Jesus wept. Poor guy's tear ducts must be exhausted and bone dry by now.

"But as a parting shot (pun intended), John H. Josselyn, legislative vice president for the Associated Gun Clubs of Baltimore Inc. says "If the president were actually shooting on a skeet or trap range*, he would have been wearing a belt with a shell bag or a shooting vest."

*You mean somewhere "real" and not at Camp David? Guess he forgot his gear back at the White House and had to rely on an aid to hand him a shell or two. But to Fox that's proof positive it's a staged photo.

No wonder Jesus wept. Poor guy's tear ducts must be exhausted and bone dry by now."------------Jesus wept because he knew what was going to happen to the Jerusalem in the future, among other things to the people of his ancestors, but, beyond that.

Your comments make it obvious you have never shot skeet in you life or been on a shooting range with safety laws for shooting trap or skeet.

Once you start shooting NO ONE is out by the shooter/s, period.
There is an area beyond which no one but shooters, or range officers go.

Skeet is a more difficult and fast paced game than trap where having a flunky supposedly handing him two shells continually would make the President look like a wanabe, or incompetent newbe.
Now if you are saying that President Obama breaks fire-arm safety laws because he knows nothing about them, well, I might give you that one.

Hmmm...nothing happened...the world didn't end...and I learned that Bill is capable, sometimes, of admitting error. Learning is good.

Talk about self righteous BS. You BOTH can kiss off. ANY time I've been proven wrong, I've owned up to it. Moreso than anyone else in here, conservative OR LIBERAL. But whyen I KNOW something to be true, just because I can't come up with the time to research it and back it up in here with a link doesn't mean it's not so, and because I'm wrong, factoman, doesn't automatically make you right. Once again, looking to make yourself feel superior, no matter how you do it.

I'm sure the facilities are much more than adequate despite not being your average Shoot 'em Up Fun Time range. I'm sure folks at Camp David know the skeet rules - at least enough to not get their face in the way like Cheney's buddy.

And to be honest - no I've never shot skeet, never been interested in it. It's not rocket science; one can know something about things one has never participated in. Years ago, I was taught to shoot a rifle on a tree farm we owned, a lesson or two with a pistol also. That was the extent of my training and/or interest in guns.

But whyen I KNOW something to be true, just because I can't come up with the time to research it and back it up in here with a link doesn't mean it's not so, and because I'm wrong, factoman, doesn't automatically make you right.

But if you think you KNOW something to be true, that is because you have examined facts and formed that conclusion based on those facts, correct? That is, you used reasoning, as opposed to bias, where instead of letting the facts lead you to a conclusion, you have a preference for what you would like to be true (or a bias against what you would like not to be true). So if you have examined information that, for example, the states highest in gun ownership rates are not the states highest in overall homicide rates, you might conclude that there is no correlation between gun ownership rates and homicide rates. But if you then discover that you based your position on wrong information, you can no longer "KNOW" that your conclusion is true; that's simple logic. And you would have to -- you would want to -- re-examine the issue in light of the corrected information.

On the other hand, if you have simply decided that something is true without respect to facts, and then you go in search of facts to support your pre-selected conclusion, you are no longer examining the issue with intellectual honesty.

Now, you say you do not have the time to research the issue and come up with a source, but it was you who researched the issue of gun ownership vs. homicide rates and came up with the supposed data in support of your position. And, furthermore, after I showed that your data was completely wrong, you agreed. So at that point, how can you continue to "KNOW" that your conclusion is correct, when you agree that the supporting facts are wrong?

That is the essence of what I see as the central problem with the way many conservatives approach issues: pick a position, then seek facts to support it, ignoring facts that support a different position.

Bingo. Me too. Remember when CNN was good? I know, it's been a while - close to 20 years. Now BBC is my go-to news source and I still like PBS' Newshour. How long before those go down the tubes as well?

If I want drivel I'll watch the evil twins - FOX and MSNBC. Thankfully, I don't want that.

And what's up with network morning "news"? Very little news and lots o' fluff. Tweets, popular YouTube vids, infotainment, woo-woo medical spots, Justin Bieber and other such entertainers, and so-called "experts" who tell you things you already knew, except in less detail. Please pass the puke bucket.

I catch the early local news, which runs into NBC's The Today Show. By then I'm working and it's just background noise. But after a while what they are presenting sinks in and my response is "WTH are you people thinking? - This is garbage". Then I change it to BBC news.