From the President who promised greater transparency

[QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]

[QUOTE="SgtKevali"]

You keep dodging that question. Of course he can criticize those that lie about him, that makes perfect sense. It's his right to do so. Now, has he tried to ban that speech? He does not have that right.

SgtKevali

And you're putting words into my mouth. Where did I make such a claim? I made a point about a President that complains about, "You're coming of age in a 24/7 media environment that bombards us with all kinds of content and exposes us to all kinds of arguments."

As if that were a bad thing. Which by the way is what helps the people to maintain the republic......not our democracy as the President put it. Yes, I agree with Obama, it does put pressures on our country, the way it was meant to be. I believe we call that accountability.

I don't see where he said that. There reason I ask you whether he has tried to ban it is because unless he does that he's not doing anything wrong. He can criticize the RW media who lie about him all day long, and it makes perfect sense. Criticizing those that lie about you is not something new.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="wstfld"] Let's produce and market a vaccine that will have widespread demand due to an all out panic in the media. I don't really care how bad the media over inflates things, but you should always look at who stands to make butt loads of money. PannicAtack

Which is clearly why government bureaus advocated people to take the vaccines. Those greedy bastards!!!

I'm pretty sure that The American Center for Disease Control and Prevention recommended the vaccine...

[QUOTE="blackngold29"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

Who reports it can leave out other things he said, paraphrase him, or make up the quotes entirely. In addition, they can spin what he said. So yes, who reports it is very relevant.

Theokhoth

That's not my job.

The source is extremely relevant. This is rule 1 of media. :lol: A biased source will make a person they don't like look as bad as possible.

The TC has also ignored a particularly interesting quote from Pres. Obama. ""You're coming of age in a 24/7 media environment that bombards us with all kinds of content and exposes us to all kinds of arguments, some of which don't always rank all that high on the truth meter," Obama said at Hampton University, Virginia." This is all he's saying, and all his message is about. We are in an age where things like "loose change" and "Zeitgeist" are being purported as truth while presenting little supporting, relevant, evidence. That's all he's saying. I don't really understand how this argument has turned into "OBAMA WANTS TO CENSOR TEH INTERNETZ HE'S WORSE THAN BUSH OH NOEZ"....chrisrooR

You mean the part where I actually quoted that? So how did I miss it if I actually quoted it?:? The rest of your hyperbole is pulled out of nowhere, because you didn't get any such ideas from me.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="wstfld"] Let's produce and market a vaccine that will have widespread demand due to an all out panic in the media. I don't really care how bad the media over inflates things, but you should always look at who stands to make butt loads of money. wstfld

Which is clearly why government bureaus advocated people to take the vaccines. Those greedy bastards!!!

Interesting argument, but I doubt that is the main reason that there was a development of a vaccine for a flu. It's not all that unusual for flu vaccines to be manufactured...

I hate how people say that video games are such a bad problem, and bad time wasters, but they never mention sports. I mean I know some people that sports have become so big in their lives that they begin to value it over education.

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

You.

QuistisTrepe_

Oh I see. Disagreement with the Obama administration = conservatism. Yeah OK.:|

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"][QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Which is clearly why government bureaus advocated people to take the vaccines. Those greedy bastards!!!

coolbeans90

I'm pretty sure that The American Center for Disease Control and Prevention recommended the vaccine...

I hate how people say that video games are such a bad problem, and bad time wasters, but they never mention sports. I mean I know some people that sports have become so big in their lives that they begin to value it over education.

cain006

[QUOTE="SgtKevali"]

[QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]

And you're putting words into my mouth. Where did I make such a claim? I made a point about a President that complains about, "You're coming of age in a 24/7 media environment that bombards us with all kinds of content and exposes us to all kinds of arguments."

As if that were a bad thing. Which by the way is what helps the people to maintain the republic......not our democracy as the President put it. Yes, I agree with Obama, it does put pressures on our country, the way it was meant to be. I believe we call that accountability.

blackngold29

I don't see where he said that. There reason I ask you whether he has tried to ban it is because unless he does that he's not doing anything wrong. He can criticize the RW media who lie about him all day long, and it makes perfect sense. Criticizing those that lie about you is not something new.

If someone lies about his birth certificate he points that out, doesn't he? There's an example.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"] "Advocated" nothing, they were giving them out for free.blackngold29

I'm pretty sure that The American Center for Disease Control and Prevention recommended the vaccine...

The risk of getting the decease may have been in theory the healthiest choice. But being that Swine Flu wasn't particularly deadly, and the chances of catching it were unlikely, it may have seemed to much of a hassle...

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Erm, there was plenty of medical citations for Swine Flu. Government bureaus advocated vaccination. Not that I think the issue wasn't overblown, (it certainly was) there was basis for the entire story.

Honestly, I am not sure that government would do a good job regulating media. Fortunately, Obama is not advocating this idea.

coolbeans90

Swine flu was basically cited by the media to be the next aids epidemic that would kill your family. People, trusting the media, freaked out. The government, having to listen to the people, had to respond to a mass panic. Even though swine flu was barely any more lethal than your common flu.

This happens often. Something happens, it isn't a huge deal, the media says it will kill you and your family and gets experts telling you you're all going to die. People freak out and bad things happen due to it.

Which explains the FDA and tons of educated doctors developing vaccines for it, and reccomended that everyone take it, as opposed to simply making it availible. :roll:

Which most deffinetly likely had nothing to do with public demand and panic for one caused by media coverage.

The swine flu was hyped to be the next aids, basically. And it's basically less serious than the regular flu. You'd have to wonder why everyone panicked so much.

[QUOTE="blackngold29"][QUOTE="SgtKevali"]

I don't see where he said that. There reason I ask you whether he has tried to ban it is because unless he does that he's not doing anything wrong. He can criticize the RW media who lie about him all day long, and it makes perfect sense. Criticizing those that lie about you is not something new.

SgtKevali

If someone lies about his birth certificate he points that out, doesn't he? There's an example.

Ah, but why doesn't he do it directly then? He criticizes Glenn Beck all the time, but he never says, "Here's what Beck said, and here's why it's wrong." That's how you disprove lies about yourself. When you just randomly criticize him, you gain nothing; at least in my mind.blackngold29

Well, you could pretty much make any claim of Glenn Beck's insanity and cite an entire show as proof. People also criticize Obama for wasting time on things he shouldn't be, do you really think he has time to compile a report on every time a Fox contributer launches what he feels is an unfair attack or takes something he said out of context? Besides, I think he originally did cite individual instances, he called on Fox to stop spreading lies about death panels. When they scoffed at him for that I think he took an, "if that's the way you're gonna play it," attitude, and why not? If a news organization reports something false, and the President asks them to read the legislation and clear their story up, and they scoff at him, then what good reason does he have to regard them as a serious news organization?

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

That's not my job.

The source is extremely relevant. This is rule 1 of media. :lol: A biased source will make a person they don't like look as bad as possible.

blackngold29

I agree, the article doesn't seem to be slanted against Obama at all, if anything it's the TC who is using excessive conjecture and taking what Obama said out of context.

This sounds almost like an Onion article.

"With iPods and iPads and Xboxes and PlayStations, -- none of which I know how to work -- information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment, rather than the means of emancipation," Obama said.

:lol:

Yes, we need fewer channels of communication controlled by agenda-driven interests. I can't believe an American president would utter such gibberish. This from the administration that was supposedly so tech-savvy. I guess Obama >3 the digital age........only when it helps to get him elected.

QuistisTrepe_

[QUOTE="SgtKevali"]

[QUOTE="blackngold29"] Ah, but why doesn't he do it directly then? He criticizes Glenn Beck all the time, but he never says, "Here's what Beck said, and here's why it's wrong." That's how you disprove lies about yourself. When you just randomly criticize him, you gain nothing; at least in my mind.blackngold29

If someone lies about his birth certificate he points that out, doesn't he? There's an example.

He made his birth certificate available on the internet to view. Do you need him to come to your house and show it to you?

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

Swine flu was basically cited by the media to be the next aids epidemic that would kill your family. People, trusting the media, freaked out. The government, having to listen to the people, had to respond to a mass panic. Even though swine flu was barely any more lethal than your common flu.

This happens often. Something happens, it isn't a huge deal, the media says it will kill you and your family and gets experts telling you you're all going to die. People freak out and bad things happen due to it.

Pixel-Pirate

Which explains the FDA and tons of educated doctors developing vaccines for it, and reccomended that everyone take it, as opposed to simply making it availible. :roll:

Which most deffinetly likely had nothing to do with public demand and panic for one caused by media coverage.

The swine flu was hyped to be the next aids, basically. And it's basically less serious than the regular flu. You'd have to wonder why everyone panicked so much.

It may have had something to do with it, but it wasn't complete and utter B.S. It was a new strand of flu, which for prevention needed a new vaccine to be developed for.

It was hyped to be the next AIDS? Really? Few people I knew cared more about this strand than the normal strand of flu. I think that you're overestimating popular reaction. There are plenty of claims on the airwaves that are completely baseless. But swine flu would have likely been reported on if the state directly regulated the media.

He's right, in a way. People see information and only acknowledge it if it's entertaining. They don't care about knowledge, about learning, etc.Lockedge

I just find the timing of his comments entirely self-serving, at a time when his poll numbers are sliding. A wiser leader would concern themselves more about what they're doing and a little bit less on what other people are saying. As the saying goes, let your actions do the talking.

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Which explains the FDA and tons of educated doctors developing vaccines for it, and reccomended that everyone take it, as opposed to simply making it availible. :roll:

coolbeans90

Which most deffinetly likely had nothing to do with public demand and panic for one caused by media coverage.

The swine flu was hyped to be the next aids, basically. And it's basically less serious than the regular flu. You'd have to wonder why everyone panicked so much.

It may have had something to do with it, but it wasn't complete and utter B.S. It was a new strand of flu, which for prevention needed a new vaccine to be developed for.

It was hyped to be the next AIDS? Really? Few people I knew cared more about this strand than the normal strand of flu. I think that you're overestimating popular reaction. There are plenty of claims on the airwaves that are completely baseless. But swine flu would have likely been reported on if the state directly regulated the media.

Isaw people running for a vaccine because the media said they were all gonna die.

I simply think the media is given too much free reign to do whatever they want when they hold so much power. A commentator on HLN, for instance, can comment on a murder case and basically say "This guy did it" without any supporting fact,s and completely ruin his life.

They can state that theres an outbreak of salmonela when it's contained/controlled and cause stocks to plummet and people to lose tons of money.

The media basically has more power than the government in certain ways, and it's completely unchecked. That worries me.

[QUOTE="blackngold29"] Ah, but why doesn't he do it directly then? He criticizes Glenn Beck all the time, but he never says, "Here's what Beck said, and here's why it's wrong." That's how you disprove lies about yourself. When you just randomly criticize him, you gain nothing; at least in my mind.theone86

Well, you could pretty much make any claim of Glenn Beck's insanity and cite an entire show as proof. People also criticize Obama for wasting time on things he shouldn't be, do you really think he has time to compile a report on every time a Fox contributer launches what he feels is an unfair attack or takes something he said out of context? Besides, I think he originally did cite individual instances, he called on Fox to stop spreading lies about death panels. When they scoffed at him for that I think he took an, "if that's the way you're gonna play it," attitude, and why not? If a news organization reports something false, and the President asks them to read the legislation and clear their story up, and they scoff at him, then what good reason does he have to regard them as a serious news organization?

The media basically has more power than the government in certain ways, and it's completely unchecked. That worries me.

Pixel-Pirate

The Constitution is there to protect the people from the government, not the other way around.

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

The media basically has more power than the government in certain ways, and it's completely unchecked. That worries me.

QuistisTrepe_

The Constitution is there to protect the people from the government, not the other way around.

I have no idea what this has to do with anything.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

Which most deffinetly likely had nothing to do with public demand and panic for one caused by media coverage.

The swine flu was hyped to be the next aids, basically. And it's basically less serious than the regular flu. You'd have to wonder why everyone panicked so much.

Pixel-Pirate

It may have had something to do with it, but it wasn't complete and utter B.S. It was a new strand of flu, which for prevention needed a new vaccine to be developed for.

It was hyped to be the next AIDS? Really? Few people I knew cared more about this strand than the normal strand of flu. I think that you're overestimating popular reaction. There are plenty of claims on the airwaves that are completely baseless. But swine flu would have likely been reported on if the state directly regulated the media.

Isaw people running for a vaccine because the media said they were all gonna die.

I simply think the media is given too much free reign to do whatever they want when they hold so much power. A commentator on HLN, for instance, can comment on a murder case and basically say "This guy did it" without any supporting fact,s and completely ruin his life.

They can state that theres an outbreak of salmonela when it's contained/controlled and cause stocks to plummet and people to lose tons of money.

The media basically has more power than the government in certain ways, and it's completely unchecked. That worries me.

The media did NOT say that they were ALL going to die. In fact I remember regularly hearing in the news that it was a less deadly flu than the normal one, although was more easily contracted.

Unless committing fraud/libel, I think speech should be protected, including speculatory reporting. Just because something is controversial or may have major consequences does not mean that it should not be reported on. Commentary is not news. Remember that. People have opinions, and that is essentially what commentary is.

People can lose money, but they knowingly invest knowing that their shares are worth exactly what others are willing to pay for them. It's how the stock market works.

The media is not unchecked. People do not believe everything they read. They are not all owned by the same person and therefore are checked by each other. Eventually the truth is reported.

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

[QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]

The Constitution is there to protect the people from the government, not the other way around.

QuistisTrepe_

I have no idea what this has to do with anything.

Somehow that doesn't surprise me.

Because it doesn't have anything to do with what I said? What does the constitution protecting the people from the government have to do with the media being more powerful than the government? The government has power but has checks and balances like the constitution. The media (which is not "the people") has massive amounts of power and absolutely no checks or balances. The government is so dangerous that it needs these checks and balances but the media does not even though one sentence from a news station can cause stocks to plummet?

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

It may have had something to do with it, but it wasn't complete and utter B.S. It was a new strand of flu, which for prevention needed a new vaccine to be developed for.

It was hyped to be the next AIDS? Really? Few people I knew cared more about this strand than the normal strand of flu. I think that you're overestimating popular reaction. There are plenty of claims on the airwaves that are completely baseless. But swine flu would have likely been reported on if the state directly regulated the media.

coolbeans90

Isaw people running for a vaccine because the media said they were all gonna die.

I simply think the media is given too much free reign to do whatever they want when they hold so much power. A commentator on HLN, for instance, can comment on a murder case and basically say "This guy did it" without any supporting fact,s and completely ruin his life.

They can state that theres an outbreak of salmonela when it's contained/controlled and cause stocks to plummet and people to lose tons of money.

The media basically has more power than the government in certain ways, and it's completely unchecked. That worries me.

The media did NOT say that they were ALL going to die. In fact I remember regularly hearing in the news that it was a less deadly flu than the normal one, although was more easily contracted.

Unless committing fraud/libel, I think speech should be protected, including speculatory reporting. Just because something is controversial or may have major consequences does not mean that it should not be reported on. Commentary is not news. Remember that. People have opinions, and that is essentially what commentary is.

People can lose money, but they knowingly invest knowing that their shares are worth exactly what others are willing to pay for them. It's how the stock market works.

The media is not unchecked. People do not believe everything they read. They are not all owned by the same person and therefore are checked by each other. Eventually the truth is reported.

And I think the media should have to state when something is just speculatory and not true news, with a simple disclaimer. Instead of being able to pretend that a commentator is reporting the news when he's spouting his opinions.

[QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

I have no idea what this has to do with anything.

Pixel-Pirate

Somehow that doesn't surprise me.

Because it doesn't have anything to do with what I said? What does the constitution protecting the people from the government have to do with the media being more powerful than the government? The government has power but has checks and balances like the constitution. The media (which is not "the people") has massive amounts of power and absolutely no checks or balances. The government is so dangerous that it needs these checks and balances but the media does not even though one sentence from a news station can cause stocks to plummet?

We have laws against slander and libel, last I checked.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

Isaw people running for a vaccine because the media said they were all gonna die.

I simply think the media is given too much free reign to do whatever they want when they hold so much power. A commentator on HLN, for instance, can comment on a murder case and basically say "This guy did it" without any supporting fact,s and completely ruin his life.

They can state that theres an outbreak of salmonela when it's contained/controlled and cause stocks to plummet and people to lose tons of money.

The media basically has more power than the government in certain ways, and it's completely unchecked. That worries me.

Pixel-Pirate

The media did NOT say that they were ALL going to die. In fact I remember regularly hearing in the news that it was a less deadly flu than the normal one, although was more easily contracted.

Unless committing fraud/libel, I think speech should be protected, including speculatory reporting. Just because something is controversial or may have major consequences does not mean that it should not be reported on. Commentary is not news. Remember that. People have opinions, and that is essentially what commentary is.

People can lose money, but they knowingly invest knowing that their shares are worth exactly what others are willing to pay for them. It's how the stock market works.

The media is not unchecked. People do not believe everything they read. They are not all owned by the same person and therefore are checked by each other. Eventually the truth is reported.

And I think the media should have to state when something is just speculatory and not true news, with a simple disclaimer. Instead of being able to pretend that a commentator is reporting the news when he's spouting his opinions.

I suppose that is reasonable. Many shows do that I think.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

Isaw people running for a vaccine because the media said they were all gonna die.

I simply think the media is given too much free reign to do whatever they want when they hold so much power. A commentator on HLN, for instance, can comment on a murder case and basically say "This guy did it" without any supporting fact,s and completely ruin his life.

They can state that theres an outbreak of salmonela when it's contained/controlled and cause stocks to plummet and people to lose tons of money.

The media basically has more power than the government in certain ways, and it's completely unchecked. That worries me.

Pixel-Pirate

The media did NOT say that they were ALL going to die. In fact I remember regularly hearing in the news that it was a less deadly flu than the normal one, although was more easily contracted.

Unless committing fraud/libel, I think speech should be protected, including speculatory reporting. Just because something is controversial or may have major consequences does not mean that it should not be reported on. Commentary is not news. Remember that. People have opinions, and that is essentially what commentary is.

People can lose money, but they knowingly invest knowing that their shares are worth exactly what others are willing to pay for them. It's how the stock market works.

The media is not unchecked. People do not believe everything they read. They are not all owned by the same person and therefore are checked by each other. Eventually the truth is reported.

And I think the media should have to state when something is just speculatory and not true news, with a simple disclaimer. Instead of being able to pretend that a commentator is reporting the news when he's spouting his opinions.

I suppose that is reasonable. Many shows do that I think.coolbeans90

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]I suppose that is reasonable. Many shows do that I think.blackngold29

*The views on this broadcast are not necessarilly representative of those of this network, xyz corporation, or our sponsors.* I suppose it's more prevelant on the radio...

The flow of information can bring good and bad things. That's the gist of his statement, as far as I can tell. Show me the bill he or someone in Congress has proposed to limit the flow of information. >_>zakkro

hmmm imagine if it was Obama who tried to pass the Patriot act...

LastCaveMan

[QUOTE="LastCaveMan"]

hmmm imagine if it was Obama who tried to pass the Patriot act...

Mystic-G

You mean the way that it wasn't when it was renewed twice by a Democrat-controlled Congress, one of those times during the Obama administration?

Why shouldn't people be smart enough to realize that? It's like people who say Fox is biased and their main points are that they have Beck and O'Reilly and they're biased. Well no crap! They're paid to have an opinion. That's their job. They are not news, the never claim to be news. People should understand that, but they don't. Maybe a disclaimer would be a good idea. Real big in the top corner: THIS IS AN OPINION DUFUS.blackngold29

Well, people should be smart enough to realize that and if they were Fox would be out of business. Fox is the number one rated cable news show, so people are part of the problem. It's a circular thing, Fox goes after these people using sensationalism, these people buy into it, who's really to blame for it? Personally I say both, people need to stop buying into whatever just because it appeals to their emotions and news organizations need to stop adding fuel to the fire. The difference is organizations can be held accountable for what they do, citizens can single them out and demand better reporting. Individual people, you can try to reach them but in the end what they do is up to them. Also, Fox is news when it's convienent for them and opinion when they need to deflect criticism. If it's really opinion then they shouldn't be taken so seriously because, well, it's opinion, but when Fox reports something people immediately go to forums like OT and start repeating Fox verbatim, that's more than just opinion.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

Well, you could pretty much make any claim of Glenn Beck's insanity and cite an entire show as proof. People also criticize Obama for wasting time on things he shouldn't be, do you really think he has time to compile a report on every time a Fox contributer launches what he feels is an unfair attack or takes something he said out of context? Besides, I think he originally did cite individual instances, he called on Fox to stop spreading lies about death panels. When they scoffed at him for that I think he took an, "if that's the way you're gonna play it," attitude, and why not? If a news organization reports something false, and the President asks them to read the legislation and clear their story up, and they scoff at him, then what good reason does he have to regard them as a serious news organization?

blackngold29

First off, I never said everything he said was a lie, I said the man was crazy and not to be taken seriously. Second, there are plenty of people out there with opinions that don't get paid by Fox. Beck doesn't get paid for his opinion, he gets paid to be a lightning rod, he gets paid to create controversey, to make a spectacle. Any news organization that blatantly does that is not to be taken seriously.

As for Beck's plan, it's hardly deserving of the title, all it amounts to is ideological ranting. People like Beck can't find a place in government, they don't know the meaning of the word comprimise. To Beck everything is agenda driven, he has his ideal libertarian society and he's going to push that idea no matter what. The problem with that is that people who know nothing about his ideas, about libertarian philosophy or any other political philosophy for that matter, hear the sensationalized version he presents, it sounds good to them, and when you combine that with the manner in which he presents them, in the whole, "everyone else is an evil oppressor and out to get you," manner it makes for an uninformed yet extremely agitated viewership. He knows this, Fox knows this, and I'm saying it's wrong to prey on those who are uninformed in order to support a political agenda.

The fact that other news organizations were talking about it is a testament to how viral Fox is. Fox is the organization that started it, they were talking about it before anyone else, and every other news outlet just jumped on the bandwagon. That's exactly the problem Obama was talking about, how one agenda-driven news organization can fabricate a story about legislation and before you know it the entire country is talking about death panels. That's a testament to how broken our news system is in this country, how something that is made up can become national news, and then on top of it despite being part of this flurry of sensationalism that was started by Fox, other news stations are struck with allegations of being liberally biased simply because they do not outright support a conservative agenda. It's ridiculous, completely dysfunctional.

As for fact checking, the White House does do that to some degree, and myself and others have pointed out to you instances in which Obama cited specific examples of Fox personalities taking him out of conext or citing specific situations.

[QUOTE="Mystic-G"][QUOTE="LastCaveMan"]

hmmm imagine if it was Obama who tried to pass the Patriot act...

QuistisTrepe_

You mean the way that it wasn't when it was renewed twice by a Democrat-controlled Congress, one of those times during the Obama administration?

[QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]

[QUOTE="Mystic-G"] Ironically it'd be all over Repub*cough* I mean Fox News about how it violates our civil rights. Mystic-G

You mean the way that it wasn't when it was renewed twice by a Democrat-controlled Congress, one of those times during the Obama administration?

Whatever helps you and your partisan pals sleep better at night. I was against the PATRIOT Act before I was against the PATRIOT Act, not just when something was done under a President I didn't like.

[QUOTE="Mystic-G"][QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]

You mean the way that it wasn't when it was renewed twice by a Democrat-controlled Congress, one of those times during the Obama administration?

QuistisTrepe_

Whatever helps you and your partisan pals sleep better at night. I was against the PATRIOT Act before I was against the PATRIOT Act, not just when something was done under a President I didn't like.

[QUOTE="F1_2004"][QUOTE="Anti-Venom"]i miss bushAnti-Venom

[QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]

[QUOTE="Mystic-G"] Awh... but you see your logic is flawed. They would then be bashing themselves by doing so. Mystic-G

Whatever helps you and your partisan pals sleep better at night. I was against the PATRIOT Act before I was against the PATRIOT Act, not just when something was done under a President I didn't like.

Well executed back-peddle, btw.

[QUOTE="Mystic-G"][QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]

Whatever helps you and your partisan pals sleep better at night. I was against the PATRIOT Act before I was against the PATRIOT Act, not just when something was done under a President I didn't like.

QuistisTrepe_

Well executed backtrack, btw.

[QUOTE="Mystic-G"][QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]

You mean the way that it wasn't when it was renewed twice by a Democrat-controlled Congress, one of those times during the Obama administration?

QuistisTrepe_

Whatever helps you and your partisan pals sleep better at night. I was against the PATRIOT Act before I was against the PATRIOT Act, not just when something was done under a President I didn't like.

You know, I think it's funny how you're telling us what our opinion is and then bashing us for it, basically ascribing a faulty line of reasoning to us without our ever having supported this line of reasoning. I've always been against the Patriot Act, and I was against Obama renewing it. Furthermore, there are plenty of liberal commentators I've heard talk about the issue, but they don't have the same reach that an organization like Fox does so nobody hears about it. By the way, Fox wasn't talking about it all that much either, after being such ardent supporters of the Bush Patriot Act and spending so much time talking about how necessary it was you would think they would at least give it a small bit of coverage. Ah, but that would present a cunundrum, if they come out against it they look like flip-floppers, and I'm also pretty sure most of the people at Fox are still in support of it anyways. If they support it, though, that would mean praising Obama for something, and they just can't have that, so they don't cover the story at all. On top of that, despite there being a movement against the Patriot Act within the liberal community none of the stations that are part of the so-called liberal media gave the story much coverage, if any at all. So go ahead, sit there and dictate our own opinions to us without actually knowing what we think on the issue. We're used to it, Fox does it all the time.

[QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]

[QUOTE="Mystic-G"] Nice way to avoid my statement. I could care less about your political affiliation... I'm just merely stating how politics works and the hypocrisy behind it. Not whether I'm for or against something. Mystic-G

Well executed backtrack, btw.

No, you made some talking-point comment, got called on it and are back-peddling. I didn't avoid anything.

[QUOTE="Mystic-G"][QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]

Well executed backtrack, btw.

QuistisTrepe_

No, you made some talking-point comment, got called on it and are back-peddling. I didn't avoid anything.

[QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]

[QUOTE="Mystic-G"] Awh... but you see your logic is flawed. They would then be bashing themselves by doing so. theone86

Whatever helps you and your partisan pals sleep better at night. I was against the PATRIOT Act before I was against the PATRIOT Act, not just when something was done under a President I didn't like.

You know, I think it's funny how you're telling us what our opinion is and then bashing us for it, basically ascribing a faulty line of reasoning to us without our ever having supported this line of reasoning. I've always been against the Patriot Act, and I was against Obama renewing it. Furthermore, there are plenty of liberal commentators I've heard talk about the issue, but they don't have the same reach that an organization like Fox does so nobody hears about it. By the way, Fox wasn't talking about it all that much either, after being such ardent supporters of the Bush Patriot Act and spending so much time talking about how necessary it was you would think they would at least give it a small bit of coverage. Ah, but that would present a cunundrum, if they come out against it they look like flip-floppers, and I'm also pretty sure most of the people at Fox are still in support of it anyways. If they support it, though, that would mean praising Obama for something, and they just can't have that, so they don't cover the story at all. On top of that, despite there being a movement against the Patriot Act within the liberal community none of the stations that are part of the so-called liberal media gave the story much coverage, if any at all. So go ahead, sit there and dictate our own opinions to us without actually knowing what we think on the issue. We're used to it, Fox does it all the time.

And yet here you are doing the same thing you're complaining about. Curious and curiouser.

The interesting part is how he actually admits, "none of which I know how to work." Why should we listen to anything he has to say about a topic that he openly admits he knows nothing about?blackngold29

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]

Whatever helps you and your partisan pals sleep better at night. I was against the PATRIOT Act before I was against the PATRIOT Act, not just when something was done under a President I didn't like.

QuistisTrepe_

You know, I think it's funny how you're telling us what our opinion is and then bashing us for it, basically ascribing a faulty line of reasoning to us without our ever having supported this line of reasoning. I've always been against the Patriot Act, and I was against Obama renewing it. Furthermore, there are plenty of liberal commentators I've heard talk about the issue, but they don't have the same reach that an organization like Fox does so nobody hears about it. By the way, Fox wasn't talking about it all that much either, after being such ardent supporters of the Bush Patriot Act and spending so much time talking about how necessary it was you would think they would at least give it a small bit of coverage. Ah, but that would present a cunundrum, if they come out against it they look like flip-floppers, and I'm also pretty sure most of the people at Fox are still in support of it anyways. If they support it, though, that would mean praising Obama for something, and they just can't have that, so they don't cover the story at all. On top of that, despite there being a movement against the Patriot Act within the liberal community none of the stations that are part of the so-called liberal media gave the story much coverage, if any at all. So go ahead, sit there and dictate our own opinions to us without actually knowing what we think on the issue. We're used to it, Fox does it all the time.

And yet here you are doing the same thing you're complaining about. Curious and curiouser.

What exactly am I doing?