Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Omnibus GOP Primary ThreadFollow

#652 Feb 01 2012 at 9:54 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
So long as you feel taking quotes wildly out of context for political ads is a sign of great moral character, you should have no problems Smiley: smile


Perhaps you should look into the plank in your own eye first? Bit hypocritical, don't you think? You making that statement about morals right after you did the exact same thing yourself. Do you believe that you are a moral person?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#653 Feb 01 2012 at 9:54 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
If the intent was to honestly debate the relative positions and platforms involved rather than make a cheap and misleading headline/whatever to get people on your side that is.

In my case, it wasn't. It was to laugh at him making another sound-bite ready gaffe that plays perfectly into the narrative he's trying to shake.

I hear he also likes firing people.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#654 Feb 01 2012 at 9:56 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Perhaps you should look into the plank in your own eye first? Bit hypocritical, don't you think?

Is it? Do you or do you not feel that taking those quotes out of context is a moral act? I didn't start a thread complaining about Romney's ad but you sure started up the waterworks when you saw Romney's quote being taken out of context here Smiley: smile
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#655 Feb 02 2012 at 9:00 AM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
I'm a little disappointed he's still parroting like no one's business, but I am a little flattered he's mimicking me now.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#656 Feb 02 2012 at 5:19 PM Rating: Excellent
Because "I don't care about the very poor" is still a horrifying thing for a politician to admit, inside or outside of its context.

Edit: Quote fail. Smiley: bah

Edited, Feb 2nd 2012 6:20pm by catwho
#657 Feb 02 2012 at 5:52 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
catwho wrote:
Because "I don't care about the very poor" is still a horrifying thing for a politician to admit, inside or outside of its context.


And if he'd said that, you might have a point. Do you see how you're responding to the incorrect reporting about what he said and not to what he actually said.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#658 Feb 02 2012 at 5:58 PM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
What a public figure actually says doesn't matter nearly as much as how any part of it can be perceived by the public. One misstep and you're left having to do damage control.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#659 Feb 02 2012 at 6:07 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Perhaps you should look into the plank in your own eye first? Bit hypocritical, don't you think?

Is it? Do you or do you not feel that taking those quotes out of context is a moral act?


Depends on how out of context, how different the impression the out of context quoting gives to the audience, and who/why the quote is being taken out of context.

How would you rank the following in terms of your expectation of factual information without bias or subjective presentation of statements by others:

1. A news outlet writing an article
2. A politician giving a speech
3. A politicians campaign ad

Which gives a more false impression:

1. Cutting off half a quote so that someone saying that he's not concerned about a group of people because they're already being taken care of is turned into a statement which appears to say that he doesn't care about that group.

2. Cutting off half a quote so that someone quoting someone else appears to be saying the same thing himself, when your point is to show that what he was attributing to that other person now applies to himself.


And just for bonus irony points:

3. Said someone falsely attributing said quote from an anonymous source within a campaign to "the campaign" in the first place.



Quote:
I didn't start a thread complaining about Romney's ad but you sure started up the waterworks when you saw Romney's quote being taken out of context here Smiley: smile


I'm not sure how those are equated in your mind. I also didn't start a thread about either event. You decided to repeat a false interpretation of Romney's statement, then to defend your action you decided to play the 'two wrongs make a right' game and bring up something Romney's campaign did in an ad. Really? How the hell does that work in your head? You honestly believe it's ok for you to repeat a falsehood because someone else said something somewhere else you also view as false? That's kinda strange IMO.

Edited, Feb 2nd 2012 4:07pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#660 Feb 02 2012 at 6:09 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
What a public figure actually says doesn't matter nearly as much as how any part of it can be perceived by the public. One misstep and you're left having to do damage control.


Sure. But when the media deliberately misreports what was said to create that perception, aren't they lying? And isn't it completely fair and legitimate to point that out, as loudly and often as possible?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#661 Feb 02 2012 at 6:14 PM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
But when the media deliberately misreports what was said to create that perception, aren't they lying?
Did he, or did he not, say "I'm not concerned with the very poor, we have safety nets there" ? At what point is that ever a good idea for a public figure who's running for a job that's supposed to be concerned with 100% of the population? Trying to blame the media on his word choices is ignorant.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#662 Feb 02 2012 at 6:37 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
But when the media deliberately misreports what was said to create that perception, aren't they lying?
Did he, or did he not, say "I'm not concerned with the very poor, we have safety nets there" ? At what point is that ever a good idea for a public figure who's running for a job that's supposed to be concerned with 100% of the population? Trying to blame the media on his word choices is ignorant.


If what he said by itself was so terrible, why crop off the second half? Why not repeat the whole quote and let the public decide how outraged they are by it instead of deliberately cropping off the second half, then leading with a teaser in which you replace the phrase "not concerned" with "doesn't care"? If what he said was so bad by itself, then why change it?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#663 Feb 02 2012 at 6:47 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Which gives a more false impression:

1. Cutting off half a quote so that someone saying that he's not concerned about a group of people because they're already being taken care of is turned into a statement which appears to say that he doesn't care about that group.

2. Cutting off half a quote so that someone quoting someone else appears to be saying the same thing himself, when your point is to show that what he was attributing to that other person now applies to himself.

The second one, absolutely. The first one is a factual, if incomplete, account of what they said. The second is completely misleading and misattributed. There's no question about it.

Not that it shocks me that you'd rationalize it differently but it's really kind of pathetic that you have to do so.

Keep on flying the "moral" flag there and crying about poor widdle Willard not being quoted right! Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#664 Feb 02 2012 at 6:49 PM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
Yes, I saw that episode of House where he said you look smarter asking question than answering them. It doesn't actually work. Seeing as how you're not going to face the issue and do your darnedest to try to obscure reality, I'll go ahead and say if people don't want to be taken out of context, then they should probably think about what they say.

You're welcome to whine about how the evil media is out to get you as your last word. It really won't change the whole reality of "if you don't want to be taken out of context, don't make it easy to be taken out of context" deal, but tonight I'm just not masochistic enough to deal with your mindless zombie like defensive behavior. You know? If you don't want people to think you're a ****, don't dress like a ****? That kind of thing.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#665 Feb 02 2012 at 7:01 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Yeah, if he actually and honestly believes in his answer there, there's just a massive gulf of logic that I can't see it being bridged.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#666 Feb 02 2012 at 7:53 PM Rating: Excellent
Can we break his spacebar key again so we get shorter posts?
#667 Feb 02 2012 at 9:27 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Which gives a more false impression:

1. Cutting off half a quote so that someone saying that he's not concerned about a group of people because they're already being taken care of is turned into a statement which appears to say that he doesn't care about that group.

2. Cutting off half a quote so that someone quoting someone else appears to be saying the same thing himself, when your point is to show that what he was attributing to that other person now applies to himself.

The second one, absolutely. The first one is a factual, if incomplete, account of what they said.


"Factual, if incomplete"? That's some serious rationalizing right there. So you change the meaning of what the guy was saying from "We don't need to worry about this group because we're already taking care of them" to "we don't care about this group". And you think that's just being "incomplete"? Smiley: oyvey


Quote:
The second is completely misleading and misattributed. There's no question about it.


Aside from the fact that had they included the first half of the statement they would have been repeating a misattributation first made by Obama and thus perpetuating a falsehood, the point was to show that someone held to blame for problems with the economy is going to tend to want to avoid talking about the economy if he wants to win an election. The use of a quote of Obama talking about what the McCain camp was doing in that situation is incredibly relevant and applicable. The quote isn't about sticking that sentence in his mouth, but to show that he is now in the same position he bashed McCain for in the 2008 election.

I know that requires some thought and understanding of the whole ad rather than just some screaming about it made on some far left blogs somewhere, but I was hoping you could rise above that.


Quote:
Not that it shocks me that you'd rationalize it differently but it's really kind of pathetic that you have to do so.


Yeah. Rubber and glue, right? I mean you're not at all interpreting those things based on your own political leanings, right? Smiley: lol

____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#668 Feb 02 2012 at 10:16 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
7,564 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Yeah, if he actually and honestly believes in his answer there, there's just a massive gulf of logic that I can't see it being bridged.


Sounds like a bridge to no where....
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#669 Feb 02 2012 at 10:49 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
"Factual, if incomplete"? That's some serious rationalizing right there.

If by "rationalizing" you mean "accurate" then I guess you got me.

Quote:
Aside from the fact that...

Speaking of rationalizing Smiley: laugh Gotta protect Romney at all costs! Can't ever, ever, ever admit to any error from him!

Ah, you. Have fun being... umm... you, I guess. Someone has to do it.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#670 Feb 03 2012 at 5:53 AM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
If you don't want people to think you're a ****, don't dress like a ****?
Hasn't he said pretty much exactly that in rape debates?
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#671 Feb 03 2012 at 7:10 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Quote:
So you change the meaning of what the guy was saying from "We don't need to worry about this group because we're already taking care of them" to "we don't care about this group". And you think that's just being "incomplete"?


Well, your "accurate" quote should at least be accurate. He did say "I don't care about the very poor, because...." and I forget the exact wording, but because there's a safety net for them already, was the import.

Now, consider the fact that the safety net is there because the very poor need it, which means they are not okay by definition. That's some tone deaf phrasing, right there, even if you understand what he meant.

And I agree with his message, which is that getting the middle class back into the game is the more urgent task at the moment, setting aside the fact that this includes finding a way to bring the newly poor back into the middle class. It was still an insensitive and jarring statement, and it came across as clueless and elitist.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#672 Feb 03 2012 at 7:44 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Samira wrote:
It was still an insensitive and jarring statement, and it came across as clueless and elitist.

Precisely. Which is why I didn't say "Haha, Romney hates poor people" but rather "Hey, thanks for the quote which fits exactly into the narrative you're trying to avoid".

At least some people here can get the point Smiley: smile

Of course, a lot of middle class people are a paycheck away from feeling "very poor" (even if they will own color TVs) and hearing "Eh, no need to worry about you; you've got food stamps and welfare" isn't really what you want from a president. That would be exactly the moment I'd want them to care most about me, when I'm hitting bottom.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#673 Feb 03 2012 at 7:52 AM Rating: Excellent
Not only that, but his full quote even alienates fiscal conservatives.

They don't want the safety net there!!!
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#674 Feb 03 2012 at 7:58 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Well, if he mad everyone mad, he must be a moderate!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#675 Feb 03 2012 at 1:58 PM Rating: Excellent
Jophiel wrote:
Well, if he mad everyone mad, he must be a moderate!


Or a nincompoop.

#676 Feb 03 2012 at 4:20 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Samira wrote:
Quote:
So you change the meaning of what the guy was saying from "We don't need to worry about this group because we're already taking care of them" to "we don't care about this group". And you think that's just being "incomplete"?


Well, your "accurate" quote should at least be accurate.


Are you kidding me?

Quote:
He did say "I don't care about the very poor, because...." and I forget the exact wording, but because there's a safety net for them already, was the import.


No. The media has repeated the claim that "Romney said he didn't care about the very poor" over and over, so now you think that's what he said. What he actually said was: "I'm not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there if it needs repair I'll fix it.".

What's so astounding is that you quoted me talking about this change of words, then repeated exactly the incorrect words that I said were being used. He did not *ever* say that he didn't care about the poor. You repeat those words because those are the words you keep hearing from the media sources you're reading/watching/hearing. That's my point though. You're reacting to their false quotes, and *not* to the words he actually said. So much so that when I paraphrased him by using the phrase "don't need to worry" you attempted to correct me and insisted that he actually said "I don't care".


He didn't. He said he was not concerned about the very poor. Which, I would hope you realize is pretty synonymous with "not worried". It's not even remotely close to not caring though.

Quote:
Now, consider the fact that the safety net is there because the very poor need it, which means they are not okay by definition. That's some tone deaf phrasing, right there, even if you understand what he meant.


Huh? He's talking about what actions need to be taken, not whether some group is "okay". We're already taking action to help the very poor. That's the safety net he spoke of. Did you actually read the full quote or watch the full clip?

Quote:
And I agree with his message, which is that getting the middle class back into the game is the more urgent task at the moment, setting aside the fact that this includes finding a way to bring the newly poor back into the middle class. It was still an insensitive and jarring statement, and it came across as clueless and elitist.


It appears insensitive and jarring only because every liberal in the media jumped on a false retelling of what he said, and repeated it over and over so as to make people think it was insensitive and jarring. If you read or heard only what he actually said without the modifications added on by so-called journalists, you would not think it was insensitive at all.


I'll ask again: If what he actually said was so bad, why change the words?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 267 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (267)