Convention
-
So, aren't you the one buying the campaign spin, my brother?
Maybe the best way forward as we start the new year is to stop accusing anyone who defends Obama against unfair criticism of being a flack. Unless you somehow imagine that all the stuff posted in here (often by clueless nutjobs) is right on point, I'd say there's more than enough room to defend the president's policies from mischaracterizations, or outright lies.
So, aren't you the one buying the campaign spin, my brother?
Maybe the best way forward as we start the new year is to stop accusing anyone who defends Obama against unfair criticism of being a flack. Unless you somehow imagine that all the stuff posted in here (often by clueless nutjobs) is right on point, I'd say there's more than enough room to defend the president's policies from mischaracterizations, or outright lies.
Oh I suppose that could be done on both sides.
But let's face it.
It hasn't happened since the Republic was founded and probably never will.
WSS
-
I mean, I don't want to take half the arrows out of your quiver...
Look, the criticisms of Obama from the right are almost always way off the mark. Which surprises me because there are lots of criticisms to be made. The problem for Republican politicians is that many of them are far too tame to get their supporters excited because they've spent so much time in the fever swamp calling him a rabid socialist who hates America. So, you get what you've heard this week: he hates success, he hates the private sector, he thinks all good things come from government, he wants the government to run everything so he can pay back his friends, etc.
That doesn't mean we have to play there. Leave it for Cal.
-
I don't really feel all that bad considering the Washington Post is supposed to be a respectable news organization.
I would think they should hold themselves to a higher standard than either Fox News or MSNBC.
So I don't think the term Flack is all that outrageous.
I don't think your reaction would be any more tempered had a similar type of response come from Matt Drudge about an Obama speech.
WSS
-
Matt Drudge is a not a journalist. He's a partisan sensationalist who links. He never pens a thing, so I don't have to worry about what he says.
You're right to call this guy on what he got wrong. That's fine. Just because he writes for the Post doesn't mean he's perfect. But this isn't about him. This is about Ryan, and the liberties he took with the truth, with Obama's record, as well as his own record. Basically, he went beyond even what convention speakers normally allowed to do. He got stealing. He was too far off the bag. The media's job is to call balls and strikes, and I was surprised to see such universal condemnation of his mendacity.
Mitt Romney, you'll note, isn't facing the same criticism today. He left the completely untrue, like the welfare work requirement stuff, and the barely true/highly misleading stuff out of his speech.
-
Matt Drudge is a not a journalist. He's a partisan sensationalist who links. He never pens a thing, so I don't have to worry about what he says.
You're right to call this guy on what he got wrong. That's fine. Just because he writes for the Post doesn't mean he's perfect. But this isn't about him. This is about Ryan, and the liberties he took with the truth, with Obama's record, as well as his own record. Basically, he went beyond even what convention speakers normally allowed to do. He got stealing. He was too far off the bag. The media's job is to call balls and strikes, and I was surprised to see such universal condemnation of his mendacity.
Mitt Romney, you'll note, isn't facing the same criticism today. He left the completely untrue, like the welfare work requirement stuff, and the barely true/highly misleading stuff out of his speech.
Matt Drudge is a not a journalist. He's a partisan sensationalist who links. He never pens a thing, so I don't have to worry about what he says.
You're right to call this guy on what he got wrong. That's fine. Just because he writes for the Post doesn't mean he's perfect. But this isn't about him. This is about Ryan, and the liberties he took with the truth, with Obama's record, as well as his own record. Basically, he went beyond even what convention speakers normally allowed to do. He got stealing. He was too far off the bag. The media's job is to call balls and strikes, and I was surprised to see such universal condemnation of his mendacity.
Mitt Romney, you'll note, isn't facing the same criticism today. He left the completely untrue, like the welfare work requirement stuff, and the barely true/highly misleading stuff out of his speech.
But the guy at the post wasn't just mistaken.
I have no doubt he's a good enough writer to have known exactly what he was doing.
That, in my opinion, makes him worse than Matt Drudge.
I don't think you'd write it off as just a mistake if it were an anti Obama article another "journalist."
WSS
-
Oh, you've divined what his intentions really were and declared them nefarious? Oh. Okay.
I'm not doing that. Especially since this guy fact checks both sides. That's his job.
-
So glad to be back.
-
Oh, you've divined what his intentions really were and declared them nefarious? Oh. Okay.
I'm not doing that. Especially since this guy fact checks both sides. That's his job.
Oh, you've divined what his intentions really were and declared them nefarious? Oh. Okay.
I'm not doing that. Especially since this guy fact checks both sides. That's his job.
Actually bud it's a lot less snarky than that.
I assume you have to be pretty damn good to get a gig with the post.
WSS
-
Yeah, you do.
Here's one for you: do you believe that Obama gutted the work requirement for welfare?
-
More than that, yes.
Of course, these are convention speeches and they're not meant to be taken as policy speeches. But you don't get passes or points for lying, or being dishonest. The number of straw men thrown up in the last few days has been remarkable. That stuff should be pointed out, and on both sides.
Do you expect the democratic side to be honest in their speeches? I can't see either side being too honest. They don't put a strong emphasis on it in politics in general.
More than that, yes.
Of course, these are convention speeches and they're not meant to be taken as policy speeches. But you don't get passes or points for lying, or being dishonest. The number of straw men thrown up in the last few days has been remarkable. That stuff should be pointed out, and on both sides.
good question - and typical expected answer from a card carrying lib carrying the water for the media HAH!
Ryan proves to be able to play politics pretty darn well, and you guys just hate it thats all......
-
I thought Eastwood nailed it!
But I wouldn't count on a bunch of cock munching libs to talk about what the real problems are here in America. Libs are living proof that man can live without a brain.
I thought Eastwood nailed it!
But I wouldn't count on a bunch of cock munching libs to talk about what the real problems are here in America. Libs are living proof that man can live without a brain.
We hired them - they failed and now we got to let them go.......
-
Yeah, you do.
Here's one for you: do you believe that Obama gutted the work requirement for welfare?
Yeah, you do.
Here's one for you: do you believe that Obama gutted the work requirement for welfare?
Yes and here's why:
There's a huge difference between mandatory an optional.
That program was hated by the left, I'm sure you saw the Michael Moore film?
It seems to me the president himself was opposed to it.
Let's assume that in many places those in charge of program share those same opinions.
You think they would opt out if given the chance?
I do.
WSS
-
Yeah, you do.
Here's one for you: do you believe that Obama gutted the work requirement for welfare?
Yes and here's why:
There's a huge difference between mandatory an optional.
That program was hated by the left, I'm sure you saw the Michael Moore film?
It seems to me the president himself was opposed to it.
Let's assume that in many places those in charge of program share those same opinions.
You think they would opt out if given the chance?
I do.
WSS
Yes and here's why:
There's a huge difference between mandatory an optional.
That program was hated by the left, I'm sure you saw the Michael Moore film?
It seems to me the president himself was opposed to it.
Let's assume that in many places those in charge of program share those same opinions.
You think they would opt out if given the chance?
I do.
WSS
This is just nonsense. I thought you'd do better. You're just making shit up, and then making shit up based on what you just made up.
"I think the President himself was opposed to it" so "others who think like him will also opt out."
You can fix all of this if you just realize that there is no opt out from the work requirement. That far from having evidence that Obama doesn't want the work requirement, the waiver is for governors who want to try different ways to meet the work requirement targets. In other words, your evidence for Obama not wanting a work requirement is ...that Obama has kept the work requirement.
In other words, say you have to move 100 people from welfare to work under the welfare reform law. Currently, you can do this using programs A, B, or C. The waiver allows states to say, "Hey, what if I try D and can show you I can get the same results?" The new law says, "Sure, apply for the waiver and if we approve you can try program D and as long as you show us how you got to the same result, which is moving 100 people to work."
Maybe it'll help you to know that the two states that have applied for waivers are both run by Republicans. They want to try a different way to get their people from welfare to work. It's what conservatives are always talking about, giving the states flexibility to meet their individual situations. That's all this is.
Hope that helps. And you just gave a perfect illustration of why it probably doesn't. (Because it doesn't square with what you already think is true.)
-
But I wouldn't count on a bunch of cock munching libs to talk about what the real problems are here in America heckbunker
*******************************************
You mean like Heckbunker and Little Johnny Woodenpeckerhead?
"yep"
-
http://touch.chicagotribune.com/#story/ct-oped-0826-chapman-20120826/
This article doesn't seem to be as 1 sided as most.
I'd found a harsher 1 at push back.com
also Cal:
So, just to be clear, I'm a cock muncher now?
WSS
-
This column makes my point, not yours. Romney's ads are wildly off the mark, and it doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out why he's running them anyway.
-
Oh, you've divined what his intentions really were and declared them nefarious? Oh. Okay.
I'm not doing that. Especially since this guy fact checks both sides. That's his job.
Actually bud it's a lot less snarky than that.
I assume you have to be pretty damn good to get a gig with the post.
WSS
Westside%20Steve said:
Actually bud it's a lot less snarky than that.
I assume you have to be pretty damn good to get a gig with the post.
WSS
I wasn't surprised to see Heck agreeing the Post doesn't hire low ballers. I mean he outta know, it didn't take much for him to get his foot in the door at the LA Times.
Instead of trolling Political boards spreading the Obama Administrations message of racist hate and financial slavery why not just stick to articles misreporting on the sexual behavior of Penguins? -I actually thought you did some good work there Heck.
Homeless people shouting at pigeons make more sense than a compost-piling wuss like you.
-
GOOD ONE!!! aaaawaahhh T I still love ya!
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login