Chatham County Online BBS
November 17, 2017, 12:27:07 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: View news videos 24/7 on the Chatham Journal News Network
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Tags Login Register  





Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Down
  Send this topic  |  Print  
Author Topic: Obama: We’re Going to Have to Change How the Media Reports  (Read 2452 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
NC YIPPIE
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:November 02, 2017, 03:41:05 PM
Date Registerd:February 09, 2006, 03:52:41 PM
Posts: 9,827



« Reply #15 on: May 28, 2015, 02:02:27 PM »

You never just pay me a compliment though, and anyone can see that as well. You always have to add a bit of posturing and insult to them. Then you wonder why you get a little back? Nah, you're just searching for kicks. Yet they keep getting harder to find.

I'm not angry man, I'm just giving a little of your own tone back. Why so thin-skinned? So yeah, both sides do 'do it' in this case, and BTW, you are the one who brought up Nixon. You've likewise not mentioned just how far Nixon went or the connections between Nixon and Bush, who you voted for I believe. You know, the guy that started the modern NSA snooping of monumental scale? The guy who made similar (admittedly lesser) claims of his own in regards to sovereign immunity? I have already admitted there are certainly parallels between Nixon & Obama & Bush - and other presidents as well. So what exactly am I leaving out there? Context??  Cool

Now, you've brought up folks being called a racist twice - and I haven't mentioned that one time. Or was it three times just in this thread? At some point I lost track. So it's plain to see that strategy is to try and lump me in with such folks who can only make that point, when the fact of the matter is that I haven't even tried to make such a point here. 

I can agree with your 1-3 list, sure. How about adding 1) People can support a specific government policy without being completely power hungry statists bent on dominating the world.

Also, I thought your statement here:
"For Obama's entire presidency, he uses sound bytes as part of his never ending campaign" implied that was somehow unique to Obama. I don't think that is unique to any modern politician. Also, perhaps you might need a better understanding of the phrase 'seem to act like' or 'act like' as opposed to the more definitive 'you believe.' There's a difference there that you seem to have purposely overlooked for effect.

As for the sovereign immunity policies of the Obama DOJ, I actually agree with you on that part. They took what was started under Bush and went even further, basically saying that they can illegally intercept whatever they want as long as they don't 'willfully' disclose it to the public. That is wrong. I do regret that I voted for someone who supports such policies and certainly that is not the only one of which I disagree.




 

Logged
Pi
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:October 18, 2017, 02:18:36 PM
Date Registerd:August 09, 2011, 10:12:40 AM
Posts: 4,510



« Reply #16 on: May 28, 2015, 11:08:30 PM »

You never just pay me a compliment though, and anyone can see that as well.

That's not true, you just need to pay closer attention.  I paid you a compliment about your music knowledge.  Once again, you ignore that which doesn't fit with your preconceived notion.

You always have to add a bit of posturing and insult to them. Then you wonder why you get a little back? Nah, you're just searching for kicks. Yet they keep getting harder to find.

Funny to see you accusing me of posturing, when I'm by far the most principled of the two of us.  I don't wonder why you're being rude.  It's your nature, and it's something you do in response to criticism of your point of view.  The better I make the argument, the angrier you are.  This is how you've always conducted yourself on here, as I'm sure others will attest.  If I get frustrated with you, it is because you misrepresent my point of view.  That's something you do often, and yet again you don't acknowledge the fact that you constantly try to put words in my mouth. 

I'm not angry man, I'm just giving a little of your own tone back. Why so thin-skinned? So yeah, both sides do 'do it' in this case, and BTW, you are the one who brought up Nixon. You've likewise not mentioned just how far Nixon went or the connections between Nixon and Bush, who you voted for I believe. You know, the guy that started the modern NSA snooping of monumental scale? The guy who made similar (admittedly lesser) claims of his own in regards to sovereign immunity? I have already admitted there are certainly parallels between Nixon & Obama & Bush - and other presidents as well. So what exactly am I leaving out there? Context??  Cool

I have mentioned Bush repeatedly.  How on earth you can pretend I haven't done so?  Remember the context in which I mentioned Nixon's actions.  It was comparing them to Obama.  That was so you could analyze Obama's intent by comparing it with president's who have done similar things.  And yet again I ask you how it is that you defend Obama and hate the likes of Bush and Nixon?  They are peas in the same pod, and their actions show them to be power hungry people who think the laws doesn't apply to them.  If there's a possibility that the law might apply, they seek to use their positions to get around it.  Bush did that.  Nixon did that.  Obama did that.

So again, how is it that you are so willing to defend Obama for those specific actions while disliking Bush or Nixon?  The only difference is their political party. 

Now, you've brought up folks being called a racist twice - and I haven't mentioned that one time. Or was it three times just in this thread? At some point I lost track. So it's plain to see that strategy is to try and lump me in with such folks who can only make that point, when the fact of the matter is that I haven't even tried to make such a point here. 

Folks in general, Yip.  Although it makes sense to preemptively cover that area since implying people that disagree with you are racist is something you have done in the past.  It seems that you have backed off of that recently and if that is really the case, and you recognize that people can just disagree, I think that is wonderful.  If you have changed your position I am willing to recognize that and see no reason to beat you up over a position you no longer have.

But when I type up these responses I am not always thinking specifically of you.  I'm writing them also for the people who are following along.  There's no reason to be offended if the point doesn't apply to you.  If mentioning it offended you, I'm sorry.  But you have to understand that during Obama's tenure, a lot of racist accusations have been thrown at people who are not racist.  They just disagree.  The liberals created that atmosphere and if I am defensive maybe the real problem rests on those who jump to accusations or racism.  And perhaps you should hold them to task.

 
I can agree with your 1-3 list, sure. How about adding 1) People can support a specific government policy without being completely power hungry statists bent on dominating the world.

I have no problem adding that.  But, for the record, I'm not calling you a power hungry statist.  I calling Obama that due to his actions.  Have you hired a team of lawyers who are trying to figure out how to flout existing law and how to make it harder for people to bring suit against the government. 

Also, I thought your statement here:
"For Obama's entire presidency, he uses sound bytes as part of his never ending campaign" implied that was somehow unique to Obama. I don't think that is unique to any modern politician. Also, perhaps you might need a better understanding of the phrase 'seem to act like' or 'act like' as opposed to the more definitive 'you believe.' There's a difference there that you seem to have purposely overlooked for effect.

How did that imply that it was unique?  Did I use the word "unique"?  How about "only"?  I simply stated what I believe to be the truth and you are the one that is applying additional meaning to my words.  This is an error on your part when it comes to reading comprehension.  You could replace the word "Obama" with "Bush" and it would work just as well.  It doesn't mean that the statement isn't true or accurate.

Do. Not. Put. Words. In. My. Mouth.  How hard is that for you to understand?  This is what you do so often.  You tell me I'm saying something I am not. 

As for the sovereign immunity policies of the Obama DOJ, I actually agree with you on that part. They took what was started under Bush and went even further, basically saying that they can illegally intercept whatever they want as long as they don't 'willfully' disclose it to the public. That is wrong. I do regret that I voted for someone who supports such policies and certainly that is not the only one of which I disagree.

I'd like to bring you back to something you asked me earlier:

I'm just saying that your claim seems to be that Obama has gone further than others, which I disagree about. Maybe in some areas, it is certainly possible, but what are they specifically? Where he has gone further than any other president? 

So now you agree with me.  This is usually the way things go so long as I am persistent.  You know, I am a lot more patient with you than you'll probably ever give me credit for.  If you would just stop and think about things instead of getting so emotional and lashing out, you'd probably find the things I have to say more interesting.

But for some reason, I have to go through lots of back and forth with you before you will finally acknowledge things.  This little story plays itself out every time almost the same way, just as I predicted a few posts back.  Here we are again.

You are a little angry but mostly you are frustrated.  That frustration, if you were honest with yourself, should really be directed toward the elected officials that have betrayed you rather than me.  I'm just the messenger telling you what is going on.  You might not like the messenger but I am not the one that asked for your precious vote.







 


[/quote]
Logged

There are two ways to conquer and enslave a country. One is by the sword. The other is by debt. - John Adams
NC YIPPIE
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:November 02, 2017, 03:41:05 PM
Date Registerd:February 09, 2006, 03:52:41 PM
Posts: 9,827



« Reply #17 on: May 29, 2015, 09:23:09 AM »

Actually, if you can find a single neutral observer to attest to your perception of my rudeness, that would be a start. I don't think you can find anyone except the echo chamber. At this point, like most everything you say, all it represents is your personal perception or claim - or posturing. You put words in my mouth as well and have done so many times, and then fall back on the same hair splitting when called on it. You're certainly not the most modest, lol.

While I agree that Obama has gone further with his claims of sovereign immunity, I disagree that he has gone further than others on intimidating the press overall, which was the larger context of this thread. Nixon wanted to destroy the New York Times, the Brookings Institution and many others. There's simply no evidence that similar illegal tactics on such a scale or with a similar goal has been attempted by Obama. Has Obama plotted the actual murder of a reporter like Liddy did with Jack Anderson? Plotted to kidnap people at a national convention or firebomb Brookings? Maybe you are right, maybe not, but I will always leave the door open for that possibility. I still want better context.
Logged
Pi
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:October 18, 2017, 02:18:36 PM
Date Registerd:August 09, 2011, 10:12:40 AM
Posts: 4,510



« Reply #18 on: May 29, 2015, 11:15:46 AM »

Actually, if you can find a single neutral observer to attest to your perception of my rudeness, that would be a start. I don't think you can find anyone except the echo chamber.

I'm one of the most neutral people here.  You are not.  At least I have consistent principles.  You do not.

At this point, like most everything you say, all it represents is your personal perception or claim - or posturing. You put words in my mouth as well and have done so many times, and then fall back on the same hair splitting when called on it. You're certainly not the most modest, lol.

I do not put words in your mouth all the time.  I have asked you for clarification before, but you are the one that constantly misrepresents what I am saying.  We don't need a neutral observer for that.  You and I both know the truth of that statement.

As far as posturing is concerned, I have always tried to present what I believe is the truth, and have put far more effort into presenting the facts than anyone else here.  In nearly every instance in which I make a claim, I post some sort of an article that backs up what I am saying.  I back up what I say a lot more than you do.

As far as being modest, I really don't care what you think in that regard.  I have always been more willing to admit when I am wrong, and have shown far more humility than you have.  The difference is that you seem to believe that since you hold the minority view here, it gives you the right to be intractable and rude when it isn't warranted.  Well, you can be that way if you want to, but don't get angry with me if I point it out.

The fact remains that you get angry when the criticism of your politics is difficult to counter.  For some reason you never really seem to grasp that maybe the problem isn't that people are pointing out the things that are wrong.  Maybe the problem is that you believe in politicians that don't give a damn about you and will lie to your face so long as they get your votes.  And not only do they get your votes while lying to you, they also get the benefit of your dogged defense of their misdeeds.  

While I agree that Obama has gone further with his claims of sovereign immunity, I disagree that he has gone further than others on intimidating the press overall, which was the larger context of this thread.

You still don't get what this thread is about.   Just because I criticize Obama doesn't mean I am saying he is the absolute worst in the history of the world when it comes to the topic at hand.  He went further with the sovereign immunity but he's not the worst when it comes to trying to manipulate the press.

Look, you don't see to understand the basic concept here, which is that I don't have to embellish to point out what Obama has done.  The fact is that he has intimidated the press.  Whether he is worse than another president or freakin' Stalin has no bearing on the truth of the statement that he is in fact guilty of manipulation.  And because of his tendency to manipulate the press I think there is ample evidence that shows he really does want to change how the media reports.  And not just with "further education".  He would love to be able to control the narrative.  He has largely succeeded in doing so outside of a few outlets like Fox.

Nixon wanted to destroy the New York Times, the Brookings Institution and many others. There's simply no evidence that similar illegal tactics on such a scale or with a similar goal has been attempted by Obama. Has Obama plotted the actual murder of a reporter like Liddy did with Jack Anderson? Plotted to kidnap people at a national convention or firebomb Brookings? Maybe you are right, maybe not, but I will always leave the door open for that possibility. I still want better context.

The fact that Obama isn't as bad as Nixon means exactly jack and squat when it comes to holding him accountable for the stuff that he is actually doing.  Nixon was a piece of cr*p and a horrible human being.  He was the worst sort.  Now, we don't have recordings of Obama's meetings with Valerie Jarrett.  I can't show you a recording where they planned to take out Andrew Breitbart, even though there were a lot of rumors about that.  In the absence of the Nixon recordings, all we'd have is rumors when it comes to many of the things that Nixon and his cronies have planned.

You really think that Obama isn't capable of such horrible things?  Even after he used the IRS as a political weapon to try to ruin people who opposed him politically?  They gave weapons to the drug cartels in the hopes that the cartels would shoot people with them so that they could get political support for gun control.  Think about all his lies and the stunts he has pulled.  

You know, not everything you list there is something that can be proven.

That puts us right back where we started, which is why you feel the need to defend Obama's comments, and try to explain how he didn't mean it so negatively....yet you are willing to believe anything negative that you read about a Republican president.  

You speak of an "echo chamber", yet you are no different.  I'd say you are worse because other people here don't constantly misrepresent what you say.  They don't constantly construct straw men when they talk to you.  It is as if you think it is okay to lie about what someone else is saying.  Do the ends really justify the means with you, Yip?

You aren't really leaving the door open for anything that contradicts your world view.  That is evidenced by the fact that no matter what some of our leaders have done, you still show up to defend them.  This thread is just one more example of that.
Logged

There are two ways to conquer and enslave a country. One is by the sword. The other is by debt. - John Adams
Pi
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:October 18, 2017, 02:18:36 PM
Date Registerd:August 09, 2011, 10:12:40 AM
Posts: 4,510



« Reply #19 on: May 29, 2015, 12:03:10 PM »

I still want better context.

General commentary follows and is not directed at anyone specifically.

I wanted to break this part out and discuss it specifically because what's behind this is a very destructive thought process.  "Context" is just another way of saying "moral relevance".  It is something that both sides of the political spectrum use.  "Our guy isn't all that bad because look at what XYZ president did X number of years ago.  You have to put it in perspective".

What this becomes is a never ending game of deciding who is the absolute worst.  That game serves no purpose when all the actions are negative.  We can quibble over who is more guilty of corruption and nefarious plans, but it doesn't get us anywhere.

In short, who is the "worst" is difficult to determine based on the fact that we aren't privy to everything that happens behind closed doors.  No president since Nixon has been stupid enough to record everything.  At least not that we know of.  But what we do know is as follows (and while begging everyone's pardon, I'll expand the scope of my comments beyond presidents):

1) We can see what the elected officials attempt to do legislatively
2) We can read what the elected officials try to do via their legal teams
3) The results of their manipulation shows up in the press, even if it doesn't show up in every news outlet
4) We can look at information we get via FOIA
5) We can listen to the whistleblowers like Snowden and others who have come forward

There are many things that we can look at to figure out what our leaders are up to.  Everyone who wants to get elected says wonderful things about transparency.  It's all lip service until they are actually doing the job and we can see who they really are.  We saw who Obama was and he was given a second term.

Obama did not deserve a second term.  People simply overlooked the things he did, and he was fortunate enough for some of the really negative things to be revealed after the election or so late in the election cycle that the impact was minimal. 

If we are going to debate these issues then we need to do so honestly.  For example, if someone wants to defend Obama when it comes to warrantless wiretapping, they could go about it several different ways.

Option A: "Obama's wiretapping is no worse than what Bush did.  And Bush gave us the Patriot Act, so he started it.  Bush was so much worse than Obama, so your criticism of Obama is misplaced.  You should be criticizing Bush because he's the real enemy".

Option B: "Obama has been really effective when it comes to the war on terror.  He killed Osama.  He just needs to do wiretapping to keep us all safe.  Plus, he needs to do that domestically because there are so many right wing nutjobs out there with guns.  Those right wingers are much more of a threat to us than radical Islam, so it makes sense that they should be watched."

Option C: "Obama is wrong for warrantless data collection but so many other president's are worse.  You should really put it in perspective.  Compared to Nixon, Obama is a choir boy."

How about this instead:

Obama is yet another in a long line of elected officials that feel the rules don't apply to them.  He is yet another in a long line of presidents that feel they can rewrite the laws if they don't like them, and have a team of lawyers who are dedicated to the task.  We lament the ability of wealthy people to get "bad a55" lawyers that get them free of charges.  Can we not then apply the same cynicism to elected officials like presidents who have more legal resources available to them than anyone else on the planet, courtesy of the U.S. taxpayer?

What we have is a long standing precedent in which one president after another expands their power and ultimately reduces the mechanisms that balance their power with the other branches of government.  Obama, and many presidents before him, have worked to further erode the ability of the people to hold them accountable.  Whether it is executive privilege, or using government agencies like the IRS as a political weapon, they have overstepped their bounds in violation of the spirit of the U.S. Constitution.

Some things Obama has done has set new precedents.  In other incidents he has used precedents set by other presidents to assert his power.  Whether he is worse or better than previous presidents is a sidebar issue.  The end result is an Executive Branch that allows the next president, whoever he or she may be, to further expand their power with impunity. 

If we cannot at least recognize the current status, we are lost.  What policies does Obama support that are so important that we must tolerate his naked ambition and violation of our privacy?  What has he done for us that we should allow him to use the IRS as a weapon against our neighbors? 

The answer is: he has done nothing to warrant those considerations.  No president, senator, or representative in history has been so wonderful that they warrant giving up essential freedom for the perception of safety.  Or in exchange for a government handout.  Or a social justice policy of any kind.

The best "social justice" is a high level of individual freedom.  That does not involve changing how the media reports.  It doesn't involve "educating" people until they swallow your decrees.  It doesn't involve intimidating people with financial audits because they dared to form an advocacy group.  It doesn't involve paying protesters an hourly fee.  It doesn't involve weighing in on local police matters when the federal government has no business interfering. 

It doesn't involve a hell of a lot of the things that are happening these days.  Just because it has become the norm doesn't mean it is right.
Logged

There are two ways to conquer and enslave a country. One is by the sword. The other is by debt. - John Adams
1911A
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:Yesterday at 12:46:43 PM
Date Registerd:April 22, 2006, 04:24:28 PM
Posts: 8,674

"Stand Your Ground" by Charles McNaughton


« Reply #20 on: May 29, 2015, 12:08:23 PM »

That's pretty good, Pi.  I don't expect it to change anything about the way the Yipster thinks, but it's good standing alone.
Logged

"You are clearly a bigoted, racist pig." - Matilda

"Let us assume for the moment everything you say about me is true. That just makes your problem bigger, doesn't it?"

Vetustior Humo.
Pi
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:October 18, 2017, 02:18:36 PM
Date Registerd:August 09, 2011, 10:12:40 AM
Posts: 4,510



« Reply #21 on: May 29, 2015, 12:14:14 PM »

That's pretty good, Pi.  I don't expect it to change anything about the way the Yipster thinks, but it's good standing alone.

Thanks, I appreciate that.  I'm no Thomas Sowell or Victor David Hanson.  I'm just a guy you might bump into at Virlie's eating a cheeseburger and clogging his arteries.
Logged

There are two ways to conquer and enslave a country. One is by the sword. The other is by debt. - John Adams
1911A
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:Yesterday at 12:46:43 PM
Date Registerd:April 22, 2006, 04:24:28 PM
Posts: 8,674

"Stand Your Ground" by Charles McNaughton


« Reply #22 on: May 29, 2015, 12:21:58 PM »

Hey, it's steak night there tonight!
Logged

"You are clearly a bigoted, racist pig." - Matilda

"Let us assume for the moment everything you say about me is true. That just makes your problem bigger, doesn't it?"

Vetustior Humo.
NC YIPPIE
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:November 02, 2017, 03:41:05 PM
Date Registerd:February 09, 2006, 03:52:41 PM
Posts: 9,827



« Reply #23 on: June 01, 2015, 03:35:09 PM »

I'm one of the most neutral people here.  You are not.  At least I have consistent principles.  You do not.

It's kind of funny that you still don't seem to be able to see the irony of being in room full of conservatives when making that statement. BTW, yes, you do put words in my mouth all the time, you just say stuff like "You really think that Obama isn't capable of such horrible things?" or try to attribute views of other people to me. I've called you on it before and pointed it out with specific examples. You do it far less than other here, but yes, you still do it.

It's not rude to simply point out another point of view or to fight fire with fire. I think your statement about being modest, as in "I really don't care what you think in that regard" sums it up just fine. You get just as worked up when I point out all the examples of you going after liberals with much more vigor than you do conservatives, which is hardly the sign of a neutral observer, although given the current company it is appreciated. Who was it that called me a MF'er here? oh yeah, that was you. No biggie, but let's not rewrite your history into the rose-tinted civility HOF.

Quote
You still don't get what this thread is about.   Just because I criticize Obama doesn't mean I am saying he is the absolute worst in the history of the world when it comes to the topic at hand.  He went further with the sovereign immunity but he's not the worst when it comes to trying to manipulate the press.

I still disagree, and it's based upon the specific quote you used to start this thread. I just don't think he was saying what you are saying he said, or that it was implied. Here's the quote again:

"I think that the effort to suggest that the poor are sponges, leeches, don’t want to work, are lazy, are undeserving, got traction. And look, it’s still being propagated. I have to say that if you watch Fox News on a regular basis, it is a constant venue. They will find folks who make me mad. I don’t know where they find them. They’re all like, “I don’t want to work. I just want a free Obama Phone, or whatever.” And that becomes an entire narrative that gets worked up. And very rarely do you hear an interview of a waitress, which is much more typical — who is raising a couple of kids and doing everything right but still can’t pay the bills. And so, if we’re going to change how Rep. John Boehner and Sen. Mitch McConnell think, we’re going to have to change how our body politic thinks, which means we’re going to have to change how the media reports on these issues, and how people’s impressions of what it’s like to struggle in this economy looks like. And how budgets connect to that. And that’s a hard process because that requires a much broader conversation than typically we have on the nightly news."

Do you agree that the media needs to do a better job of reporting more complex issues? That they often don't get an issue right, and instead focus on a single interview or observation to sell a particular larger point of view? A better job of not going for the easy clickbait headline? Maybe you are right and that his administration, like most politicians, want to influence how their policies are being covered. It seems pretty clear that you have attempted to embellish that quote to make it mean more than what it actually says. I guess that's your own version of context, right?

Quote
You know, not everything you list there is something that can be proven.
Would you like to see the quote from Liddy's autobiography admitting to those things/

Quote
You speak of an "echo chamber", yet you are no different.  
Sure I am, I'm not the one who surrounds themselves with a room full of posters simply nodding in agreement. The reason they are not constructing straw man with you is that you are mostly not criticizing them and y'all agree.

I disagree, at least partially, with your point about context - that it should not even be entertained in a discussion about a particular policy or crime. I would emphasize the fact that using it to say it doesn't matter or that we should ignore it is quite different from pointing out that we have been down the same road before. Also, I think it is helpful to know that since both sides are guilty of transgressions, we should be wary of all who govern, not just those with whom we may disagree. Also, if we only focus on who is in office now, we may fail to see the patterns or how we were fooled by members of our own party on similar issues in the past. Finally, I think that it also takes a good deal of time to know what we can of the truth, and that is part of what gives presidents such enormous power. They can deny, deny, deny and try to move on to other topics and issues. Then, years later, we often find out that they were lying. So I think that using context, in a general sense, can help us sniff out the reasons why there are discrepancies in facts and history.

However, I'm fine with the general commentary part towards the end.


Logged
Pi
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:October 18, 2017, 02:18:36 PM
Date Registerd:August 09, 2011, 10:12:40 AM
Posts: 4,510



« Reply #24 on: June 02, 2015, 11:34:40 AM »


It's kind of funny that you still don't seem to be able to see the irony of being in room full of conservatives when making that statement. BTW, yes, you do put words in my mouth all the time, you just say stuff like "You really think that Obama isn't capable of such horrible things?" or try to attribute views of other people to me. I've called you on it before and pointed it out with specific examples. You do it far less than other here, but yes, you still do it.

I guess you still haven't mastered the question mark yet. That is not putting words in your mouth. You have defended Obama on this topic. My question is a valid one. You seem to think that since you are outnumbered, anything goes and you can make whatever misrepresentations you like.  The thing is, you must put words in my mouth because you cannot debate me honestly.

It's not rude to simply point out another point of view or to fight fire with fire. I think your statement about being modest, as in "I really don't care what you think in that regard" sums it up just fine. You get just as worked up when I point out all the examples of you going after liberals with much more vigor than you do conservatives, which is hardly the sign of a neutral observer, although given the current company it is appreciated. Who was it that called me a MF'er here? oh yeah, that was you. No biggie, but let's not rewrite your history into the rose-tinted civility HOF.

And when you put words in my mouth and constantly lie about what I am saying the insult is warranted.  I go after both parties.  Compared to you I am much more neutral. Your principles are as fluid as can be. The fact that you hold views that are in the minority here does not excuse that. The fact that you constantly defend the worse behavior by Democrats is proof of that. If it is wrong, I call it as I see it, which is something you studiously ignore. Case in point: the thread about Jeb Bush.

Do you agree that the media needs to do a better job of reporting more complex issues? That they often don't get an issue right, and instead focus on a single interview or observation to sell a particular larger point of view? A better job of not going for the easy clickbait headline?

Yes, but Obama is not the one that has a leg to stand on to chastise them. Especially when he has engaged in the same click bait headline nonsense when it comes to the narrative pushed by his campaigns and his administration.

Can you or can you not grasp that Obama means this criticism selectively?

Maybe you are right and that his administration, like most politicians, want to influence how their policies are being covered.

What do you mean "maybe"?  You can't even concede that point after ALL the stunts he has pulled, is that really a doubt in your mind?  If at this point that is in doubt, then you are not a person that operates on anything that resembles reason.

It seems pretty clear that you have attempted to embellish that quote to make it mean more than what it actually says. I guess that's your own version of context, right?

Did I embellish when I pointed out the wire taps on reporters?  You have no problem believing anything negative about Bush, whether there is proof or not. You come in here with conspiracy theory stuff and I am inclined to agree with you when it comes to government. On the other hand, you are inclined to defend Democrats and criticize Repubs for very similar actions.

Both of us offer content to try to make our case. Except that I am not excusing the actions of government officials.  You excuse actions based on the politics of the perpetrators. Again, that speaks to the fluid nature of your principles.

As far as Obama and the media, he is as bad as the worst presidents we have had for trying to control the narrative. Take into consideration that he told us the ACA was not a tax, but then his lawyers argued it was to the Supremes. Consider the lies about Bengazi. The lies about his economic plans and the subsides for corporations that do not square with his assertions. He has tried to intimidate some reporters.  He tried to intimidate his opposition via IRS audits.

And yet, you say "maybe" he wants to control the narrative?

Sure I am, I'm not the one who surrounds themselves with a room full of posters simply nodding in agreement. The reason they are not constructing straw man with you is that you are mostly not criticizing them and y'all agree.

Yes I am paying these people to post on here and agree with me.  Except when they don't. And except when I go after Republicans. It is all part of a big right wing conspiracy. Criticizing GWB and Jeb is just part of our evil plan.

I disagree, at least partially, with your point about context - that it should not even be entertained in a discussion about a particular policy or crime

I don't care if you wan to add context man. What I care about is when you try to convince us that Obama isn't so bad after all. He is not a good president. So let's entertain it, by all means. But don't think that we don't see your attempt to provide context as something that it isn't. It is a way to downplay the criticism.

Think forward a few years. Pretend we have Jeb Bush in office. Pretend his admin gets caught wiretapping someone from the NYT.  Do you really need me to bring up Obama and make the case that Jeb ain't so bad because Obama got caught tapping more reporter's phone lines?

I would emphasize the fact that using it to say it doesn't matter or that we should ignore it is quite different from pointing out that we have been down the same road before. Also, I think it is helpful to know that since both sides are guilty of transgressions, we should be wary of all who govern, not just those with whom we may disagree.

Except that you don't hold Obama to the same level of criticism that you do Republicans.  Don't parrot my words as if you actually mean them. You don't mean that. Your goal isn't to hold Obama accountable.  You voted for him knowing much of this. So all your mealy mouth repetition of my words doesn't mean anything.

The fact that you said "maybe" Obama wants to control the narrative tells us that you don't mean a word of what you just said with regard to holding all accountable.

Also, if we only focus on who is in office now, we may fail to see the patterns or how we were fooled by members of our own party on similar issues in the past.

It means nothing to examine the past if it doesn't translate into action. Do you think Obama should be punished for lying to us?  Do you not think he should be held accountable for lying about Bengazi?  The IRS?  Fast and Furious?  When have you ever said that Obama needs to be punished?  I bet the most you will say is that it hasn't been proven in a court of law that Obama is at fault. Well, the same can be said for Nixon on many counts.  Reagan and Bush fit the bill.  I bet you would be glad to see Bush indicted for something, but not Obama. That the difference.

I think if we get a Republican president in 2016 you will be in favor of immediate punishment. Now that your guy is in office....not so much.

Finally, I think that it also takes a good deal of time to know what we can of the truth, and that is part of what gives presidents such enormous power. They can deny, deny, deny and try to move on to other topics and issues. Then, years later, we often find out that they were lying. So I think that using context, in a general sense, can help us sniff out the reasons why there are discrepancies in facts and history.

Does that mean we should just keep voting for them no matter what controversy swirls around them.  How many years did it take you to oppose the Iraq war?  Did you wait a number of years to view Bush's actions through the lens of history? 

Hell no you don't. This is just mealy mouth BS you are using to justify not holding Obama accountable.

However, I'm fine with the general commentary part towards the end.

I think you are generally okay with criticism that does not mention your preferred politicians by name. If I took out Obamas name and inserted a Republican you would have loved it.

You are part of the problem, Yip. You are not the solution.
Logged

There are two ways to conquer and enslave a country. One is by the sword. The other is by debt. - John Adams
Pi
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:October 18, 2017, 02:18:36 PM
Date Registerd:August 09, 2011, 10:12:40 AM
Posts: 4,510



« Reply #25 on: June 02, 2015, 11:51:13 AM »

Sidebar comment:  the problem with Yip and people like him is that he can't just focus on the topic at hand. Nor can he even focus on the person he is responding to. It's all about the cosmic unfairness of him having the minority opinion.

Because the Yipster is so focused on his conjured up victimhood, he doesn't see who heis responding to.  When it comes to politics I am on my own. There is nobody here that is like me. I am pro life and pro same sex marriage. I am for drug legalization.  I am against fracking in Chatham. My politics are not right or left. They are all over the place.

There are liberals and conservatives here. Yip is not alone. But perhaps I am. But the difference is I don't see it as a negative.

Me and the righties don't always get along. But they seem to be more tolerant than their lefty opposites. Just my anecdotal observation.  Case in point: the last exchange with CHF was cordial, even though I probably failed to convince him.
Logged

There are two ways to conquer and enslave a country. One is by the sword. The other is by debt. - John Adams
1911A
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:Yesterday at 12:46:43 PM
Date Registerd:April 22, 2006, 04:24:28 PM
Posts: 8,674

"Stand Your Ground" by Charles McNaughton


« Reply #26 on: June 02, 2015, 12:42:17 PM »

Quote
Yes I am paying these people to post on here and agree with me.

BTW, my check is late.  Just sayin'.

Gene, not only is the preview not working, the font re-sizing isn't either.  At least for me.  Anyone else having a problem?
« Last Edit: June 02, 2015, 12:44:06 PM by 1911A » Logged

"You are clearly a bigoted, racist pig." - Matilda

"Let us assume for the moment everything you say about me is true. That just makes your problem bigger, doesn't it?"

Vetustior Humo.
NC YIPPIE
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:November 02, 2017, 03:41:05 PM
Date Registerd:February 09, 2006, 03:52:41 PM
Posts: 9,827



« Reply #27 on: June 02, 2015, 08:35:28 PM »

So am I to assume you would support an arrest and conviction of Bush and multiple members of his administration for lying about Iraq? For other lies? Oh, sorry, that's right, no need to seek justice there, just move along, I know. And you also called for Reagan to be arrested and convicted for lying about Iran? I've never seen you say anything like that here. He was wrong, sure, but there were 'mitigating factors' in his support of murders, so that's all ancient history now. What we got from you were the reasons why Reagan supported murderous regimes illegally. That's how you add your own context. In that case, with Reagan, we're talking about thousands of civilians murdered in cold blood by forces we supported in multiple countries. The same Reagan that left our Marines open to attack in Beirut and then cut and run. In the thread on Guatemala and Montt, you got served as far as facts and wound up quoting from lyndonlarouche.com as a source. You said I posted opinion pieces there, yet failed to point out any factual errors, while I pointed out quite a few in your own assertions. When I pushed you to counter with facts you said "I'm not your research assistant" because you couldn't come up with any. So you are wrong to say I can't argue with you.

So how about you rabid yet somehow still tepid criticism of Bush, I'm sure you must of called for him to be arrested or impeached due to his lies related to Iraq? No? You criticize Bush - but you never call for the same action you seem to be calling for here, as in legal action, even when the consequences were much greater. I criticize Obama, but it's just not as forceful as you would like it to be, even though I still do it, while you pretend like I never do it. You say things like "What I am saying is that what happened in the Bush years must be acknowledged as mistakes. Even if Bush wasn't convicted in a court of law, he should be convicted in the court of public opinion. But whether or not Bush got away with something isn't relevant to how we should hold Obama accountable." So the actions of both Reagan and Bush were illegal and resulted in the deaths of thousands of people. Yet according to you, Bush didn't exactly lie, he just tended to "overstate the potential." You can't even bring yourself to say that Bush lied - all you can muster is "he wasn't straight with us." Well, maybe he exaggerated and an exaggeration is a form of a lie, well, I guess, maybe. Yet we shouldn't hold them accountable, in the same way you are asking me to hold Obama accountable here, we should just not elect them again. You know what they call that? Yes, of course, fluid principles.

I have not defended the wiretaps or any other misdeeds anywhere in this thread or anyplace else. In the Benghazi threads, I have said the Obama admin was wrong from the start for any attempt at spin and delinquent in their duties to protect our folks abroad. Your issue Pi is that you aren't really mad at me, you're mad at Obama and you want to take it out on me. Politicians, DEFINITELY including Obama and his administration, are by their very nature driven to control and manipulate the press - they tell themselves it is to gets things they support accomplished, they tell themselves they are just trying to get the truth out. However, they are all, or maybe 99% or so, simply interested in retaining and expanding their power. I'm entirely focused on the topic at hand, I just prefer a wide angle lens.


Logged
Pi
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:October 18, 2017, 02:18:36 PM
Date Registerd:August 09, 2011, 10:12:40 AM
Posts: 4,510



« Reply #28 on: June 03, 2015, 02:01:31 AM »

So am I to assume you would support an arrest and conviction of Bush and multiple members of his administration for lying about Iraq? For other lies? Oh, sorry, that's right, no need to seek justice there, just move along, I know.

Why not?  If our government officials lied to us, and I believe there is some evidence they did, why shouldn't they be punished.  I dont' see how Bush is above the law any more than anyone else is. 

And you also called for Reagan to be arrested and convicted for lying about Iran? I've never seen you say anything like that here. He was wrong, sure, but there were 'mitigating factors' in his support of murders, so that's all ancient history now.

No, it's not ancient history, but you left out a lot of information in your critique of Reagan.  Actually, you just posted some articles that made your case for you.  We had that discussion, and if all you came away was "it's all ancient history, move along", then you either need to go back and read it again or you are completely hopeless and either misremember what I've said or are simply misrepresenting me as per usual.  Did you think it was wrong for the Israelis to go after Nazi war criminals?  That's a good question to ask a liberal who hates both what Hitler stood for...and doesn't care much for the actions of Israel either.  Personally, if someone does something horrible, elected official or not, there should be some mechanism that holds them accountable. 

But let's talk a minute about accountability, because there's different ways to hold politicians accountable.  For example, we could try them in a court of law.  Sometimes that works, and sometimes that doesn't.  I bet we'd have a hard time getting anything to stick.  The fact is that Bill Clinton lied under oath.  But because he was president, holding him accountable for that ultimately failed.  If you or I lied under oath you better believe we'd suffer for it.  Unless you've got some serious money stashed away somewhere and haven't revealed to us that you are super wealthy.

There's another kind of accountability though, and that's the court of public opinion.  Clinton dealt with that.  So did Bush.  So did Obama.  Did Bush really deserve to get re-elected?  No.  Did Obama?  I think if you were honest with us you might concede that he was not.  But he got your vote.  And so for that reason I think when you ask about holding people accountable in court or otherwise, it rings hollow.  If you can't even hold the politician responsible enough that they lose your vote, how do you expect to hold them legally responsible? 

If you wanted to hold some sort of court session and try Reagan I guess we could do that but Reagan is dead.  It isn't ancient history, as I lived through it, and I'm not quite 'ancient' yet.  Or at least I'd like to think I'm not.  There were mitigating factors when it comes to what Reagan did.  It didn't make what he did any less wrong, but I don't understand why you can bring all the context in the world into discussions and I can't.

Also, just because Reagan did something in the past, or any president, does not excuse what is happening now. 

What we got from you were the reasons why Reagan supported murderous regimes illegally. That's how you add your own context. In that case, with Reagan, we're talking about thousands of civilians murdered in cold blood by forces we supported in multiple countries. The same Reagan that left our Marines open to attack in Beirut and then cut and run. In the thread on Guatemala and Montt, you got served as far as facts and wound up quoting from lyndonlarouche.com as a source. You said I posted opinion pieces there, yet failed to point out any factual errors, while I pointed out quite a few in your own assertions. When I pushed you to counter with facts you said "I'm not your research assistant" because you couldn't come up with any. So you are wrong to say I can't argue with you.

Um...you might need to re-read that thread.  Your version of events is not what actually occurred.  I have handed you your own hindquarters in debates so many times it isn't even funny.  What's funny is that you count that discussion as a win for yourself. 

There's a discussion topic though that you cut and ran from.  Do you remember it?  It had to do with Obama financing Islamic extremists that massacred Christians.  Are you aware that is still going on?  Why haven't you been willing to discuss that topic?  The news reports are all over the place.  I know why and so do you.  You don't want to talk about it because Reagan was a Republican and Obama is a Democrat.

If I were generous and decided to concede your points in that one discussion about Reagan, what do you think the total score is between you and I?  When I make compelling arguments you suddenly go on vacation.  Or at least, when the news cycle is so negative toward Obama (and rightly so) even you can't muster the fortitude to come to his defense.

So how about you rabid yet somehow still tepid criticism of Bush, I'm sure you must of called for him to be arrested or impeached due to his lies related to Iraq? No? You criticize Bush - but you never call for the same action you seem to be calling for here, as in legal action, even when the consequences were much greater. I criticize Obama, but it's just not as forceful as you would like it to be, even though I still do it, while you pretend like I never do it.

I really don't know what to say to this comment other than to simply point at the hypocrisy of it.  You know, I have said that Bush should be charged.  I guess you miss it when I say that because you'd rather ignore any points of agreement we have and just rant and rave at me as if I'm some lockstep establishment Republican. 

It isn't that you don't criticize Obama forcefully enough.  It's that he gets your VOTE.  That's not a case of too little criticism.  It would be different if every time you mentioned Bush I jumped in to add "context".  But I don't.  I largely agree with you.  And I sure as hell didn't vote for Bush the second time because of those things.

You make all sorts of noises about holding Bush accountable but you're not willing to do that, to any extent for Obama.  Obama instead gets your support, and your vote.  Bush didn't get my vote in 2004.  He didn't get my support after he left office.  He doesn't have it now.  I don't think Bush is pure evil like a lot of progressives do.  For the record, I don't think Obama is pure evil either.  But they both abused their positions.  They both lied to us.  They both took steps to trample on our 1st and 4th amendment rights.

Why in the HELL are you fighting me about this?  If you give a damn about those things we should be working together not against each other.  But we can't work together if, at almost every turn, you are telling us that Obama isn't so bad.  What in the hell have you ever done to hold Obama accountable for anything?  You said you have made your feelings know, sent letters, made phone calls, etc.  You know, I can't prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt, but I seriously doubt you've lifted a finger to do anything to express to Obama you displeasure with his policies.

On the other hand, the people manning the phones and email address at the White House sure as hell heard from me during the Bush years.  For example:

1. The thing with Plame ticked me off to no end.  I let them know how stupid it was for him to refuse to answer questions about it.  That was a monumental screw up.
2. The claim that the Brits uncovered intel that Saddam was looking to buy uranium from Africa.  That was B.S. and it was one of the main pillars upon which the Bush admin built their rickety case for the Iraq invasion and occupation.
3. Abu Ghraib. 
4. The bailout.

Let me tell you something that you should have picked up on and that I've talked about a lot here.  Think back a bit to many of my discussions about the 2008 economic crisis.  I have criticized Bush as much or more, on just that one topic, than you may have combined.  Stop and try to remember how many times I have talked about Bush's role in that debacle.  Think about how many times I took the Bush Admin to task for the spending.

I think when you, Yip, read what I post, you have a habit of skimming over anything that you agree with and then focus in on the things that you take issue with.  What's funny is that I have introduced criticism of Bush that you probably hadn't thought of and weren't even able to articulate. 

Yet, you continue to try to misrepresent me as a defender of Bush, or Reagan, or whomever.  I think you do it because it is easier for you to pretend that I am your political opposite when you debate me.  Maybe "try to debate me" is a better way of putting it.  It's as if you respond to me as if you would some other poster.  It's much harder to respond to the views I actually hold than it is to spar with a caricature that you conjure up on your own.

You say things like "What I am saying is that what happened in the Bush years must be acknowledged as mistakes. Even if Bush wasn't convicted in a court of law, he should be convicted in the court of public opinion. But whether or not Bush got away with something isn't relevant to how we should hold Obama accountable." So the actions of both Reagan and Bush were illegal and resulted in the deaths of thousands of people. Yet according to you, Bush didn't exactly lie, he just tended to "overstate the potential." You can't even bring yourself to say that Bush lied - all you can muster is "he wasn't straight with us." Well, maybe he exaggerated and an exaggeration is a form of a lie, well, I guess, maybe. Yet we shouldn't hold them accountable, in the same way you are asking me to hold Obama accountable here, we should just not elect them again. You know what they call that? Yes, of course, fluid principles.

Huh?  I have said Bush lied about all sorts of things.  Look, Bush has lied to us on other things, not just Iraq.  Even if, for some super strange reason, I was to hold the opinion that going into Iraq was a really solid idea and supported it 100 percent, there's at least half a dozen other things I could list right off the top of my head that Bush lied about.  But...I don't have that opinion, so make it seven things and counting...as fast as I can list them.

Look, this thing where you are putting words in my mouth and telling me I hold view that I don't hold has got to stop.  It's as if you're senile and forgetting who you're talking to every 5 minutes and I keep having to remind you.  How many times have I said we have to hold ALL elected officials accountable?  How is it that you are struggling with the word "all".  Because between those three little letters it seems as if you're reading entire sentences like "hold them accountable, except for Bush and Reagan...".

The world ALL is much like "I AM GROOT".  It's three things, specifically in that order.  Nothing more.  Throw Bush and his big ears in prison.  But throw Obama, Holder, Cheney, Lerner, and all the rest right in there with them.

Same page or not the same page? 

I have not defended the wiretaps or any other misdeeds anywhere in this thread or anyplace else. In the Benghazi threads, I have said the Obama admin was wrong from the start for any attempt at spin and delinquent in their duties to protect our folks abroad. Your issue Pi is that you aren't really mad at me, you're mad at Obama and you want to take it out on me.

No, you don't seem to get it.  You're frustrated because you cast a vote that you are completely unable to justify or defend.  But you try to anyway.  And what ticks you off is when someone criticizes Obama, because just pointing it out causes you to take it personally.  If I criticize Obama, you feel as if I am personally rubbing your face in it.  But I'm not.  You're putting that all on yourself.

When you come in here and try to defend or downplay Obama's actions, I'm arguing specifically with you.  I can argue Obama's policies all day and as yet you've been completely unable to mount an effective defense.  Do you ever stop and ask yourself why you struggle so much to succeed in that arena?  I'll tell you why: it's because Obama is wrong.

My suggestion to you is to stop trying so hard to justify your actions.  That's just your stubbornness kicking in.  That man lied to you when he said he gave a damn about you.  He lied when he said he was going to be transparent.  You are defending a man that has many of the same traits as the politicians thoughout history that you despise.

The part you are really struggling with, Yip, is that Obama tricked you into casting a vote in support of the very things that you have always stood against.

Politicians, DEFINITELY including Obama and his administration, are by their very nature driven to control and manipulate the press

Here's a thought.  If you don't mean "maybe" then don't use that word.  Suck it up and admit that I was right.  That's the very sort of sugarcoating downplaying nonsense that I'm talking about.  If you read back what you said, in a more sober frame of mind, you should have cringed.

- they tell themselves it is to gets things they support accomplished, they tell themselves they are just trying to get the truth out. However, they are all, or maybe 99% or so, simply interested in retaining and expanding their power. I'm entirely focused on the topic at hand, I just prefer a wide angle lens.

A wide angle lens is one thing.  Making excuses is another.  That wide angle lens of yours has one hell of a filter.  You might want to address that.
Logged

There are two ways to conquer and enslave a country. One is by the sword. The other is by debt. - John Adams
noway2
Chathameister
****
Offline Offline

Last Login:April 22, 2016, 03:02:27 PM
Date Registerd:June 20, 2014, 01:36:40 PM
Posts: 555


« Reply #29 on: June 03, 2015, 07:54:06 AM »

But let's talk a minute about accountability, because there's different ways to hold politicians accountable.  For example, we could try them in a court of law.  Sometimes that works, and sometimes that doesn't.  I bet we'd have a hard time getting anything to stick.  The fact is that Bill Clinton lied under oath.  But because he was president, holding him accountable for that ultimately failed.  If you or I lied under oath you better believe we'd suffer for it.  Unless you've got some serious money stashed away somewhere and haven't revealed to us that you are super wealthy.
Personally, I like the Klingon approach where the entire family, three generations up and down from great grandparents through great grandchildren bear the shame of dishonor and can't even use their family name. 

I also think that both Bush and Obama should be dealt with for their actions, but more importantly the fact that the same malfeasance is going on in both political parties, despite rhetoric to the contrary, tells me that Bush, Obama and whatever clown has the next honor to pass gas in the oval office is just a puppet behind the real force that needs to be addressed.
Logged
Tags:
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Up
  Send this topic  |  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!