|
Post by Naptaq on Nov 13, 2008 16:21:25 GMT -5
1. The Bush Doctrine is to take the fight to the terrorists. (2004) 2. I thought the Bush Doctrine was about using Democracy to fight terror. (2008) 3. The Bush Doctrine? I don't know what that is. (2008) Ok, you want me to respond to this ridiculus argument. I pointed out before that he was clearly mocking Gibson's gotcha question due to the, in my opinion, obsurity of the usage and many definitions of this 'doctrine'. I'll turn the tables on you: Obama lied when he said he visited 57 states! .. Liar, liar your pants are on fire! ;D jk In my view of it, Obama made a joke with an exaggeration, because he was traveling so much. Bill O'Reilly did the same with the 'Bush Doctrine' - it was not clearly defined, is something made up by the media, went through many incarnations and is now rarely in use. Actually all he said about the Bush doctrine was: PALIN: His world view?GIBSON: No, the Bush Doctrine enunciated September 2002 before the Iraq war. And she responded with one of the versions of the doctrine: PALIN: I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell-bent on destroying our nation.And she anwsered with a definition of the doctrine, but apperently it is not the one Mr.Gibson meant, according to Karl Rove 1. But it's all the same - It's all the "Bush Doctrine" ;D So, she got it right. source: 1 - at about 3:10 into the video Rove explains the various Bush Doctrine incarnations.
|
|
|
Post by Farouche on Nov 13, 2008 17:36:14 GMT -5
Naptaq ------------ Ok, you want me to respond to this ridiculus argument. I pointed out before that he was clearly mocking Gibson's gotcha question due to the, in my opinion, obsurity of the usage and many definitions of this 'doctrine'. You have no made one single clear argument throughout this exchange. From the beginning you've just been throwing out all possible interpretations that end with "so Bill O'Reilly never lies or misrepresents the truth," just to see what sticks. Don't think no one notices. The progression of the Naptaq argument: 1. Bill O'Reilly wasn't talking about the Bush Doctrine on foreign policy when he mentioned the Bush Doctrine. He was talking about Bush's foreign policy plans. 2. Bill O'Reilly can't have been talking about the Bush Doctrine because the Bush Doctrine doesn't exist. 3. When Bill O'Reilly said he didn't know what the Bush Doctrine was even though, I admit, he defined it in the past, he only meant that his definition of the Bush Doctrine was inconsistent with the one used by Gibson. 4. When O'Reilly said he didn't know what the Bush Doctrine even though, I admit, he previously defined it, he only meant that the definition of the Bush Doctrine is ambiguous. 5. When O'Reilly said he didn't know what the Bush Doctrine was, he was just joking. He knew what it was and so did Palin. Or maybe she didn't, but in that case the question was a "gotcha." 6. O'Reilly was just joking about not knowing what the Bush Doctrine was, because he did have a definition for the Bush Doctrine despite the handicap of the Bush Doctrine not existing [man, he's good!], but he was also serious about not "knowing" what the Bush Doctrine is because it is slightly ambiguous. None of them makes any sense. Naptaq -------------- I'll turn the tables on you: Very bad idea. You've made the assumption that like you, I will do and say anything and everything in my power to defend the infallibility of those whose views I support. You gambled, and you've lost. Let's examine this clip. Naptaq ------------------- Obama lied when he said he visited 57 states!
.. Liar, liar your pants are on fire! ;D jk
In my view of it, Obama made a joke with an exaggeration, because he was traveling so much. Uhhhhhh, no. Perhaps American humor is far different from what you're used to, or perhaps you're not big on humor in general, I don't know. But Obama was definitely not joking in that clip. When he said he'd visited 57 states, he was quite patently serious. That leaves two options: it was either a gaffe, or a lie. Since it would make no sense to "lie" about the number of states, as it makes no sense to "lie" about how many arms a typical person has, I'm betting that he just plain screwed up. It was a gaffe. He meant to say 47; it came out 57. Tut tut, Obama said something silly. But you know what? If it would make you feel better to be able to say, "Obama lied about there being 57 states," I will give you that, lol. I will say that Obama lied about the number of states--to what end I know not--but I will say he lied about those states if you admit that Palin did not understand the Bush Doctrine, and that Bill O'Reilly lied when he said he didn't understand the Bush Doctrine so that he could dismiss Palin's ignorance as the result of a "gotcha" question. Naptaq ---------------- Bill O'Reilly did the same with the 'Bush Doctrine' - it was not clearly defined, is something made up by the media, went through many incarnations and is now rarely in use. That makes no sense. You've changed your tactic within the same argument. You started out arguing that O'Reilly was just joking when he said, "The Bush Doctrine? I don't know what that is." Now you're trying to argue that he was serious when he said it, and he was referring to the fact that the definition of the term is slightly ambiguous. Can't have it both ways. Let's review the transcript again and I'll point out to you "joke" versus "not joke." The only joke will be in red. "I'm sitting at home going 'what Bush Doctrine'? Is that the doctrine where I go to Crawford Texas five times a year? What Bush Doctrine is that? I don't know what that is. That was just ridiculous. It's all gotcha gotcha gotcha." Naptaq -------------------- PALIN: His world view?
GIBSON: No, the Bush Doctrine enunciated September 2002 before the Iraq war.
And she responded with one of the versions of the doctrine:
PALIN: I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell-bent on destroying our nation. You are digging yourself deeper and deeper. 1.That is NOT one of the versions of the Bush Doctrine! In no way is that a version of the Bush Doctrine. It doesn't even answer the initial question. "Do you agree with the Bush Doctrine?" "I believe the president wants to rid the world of Islamic extremist terrorists!" The Bush Doctrine is about HOW we fight people, not WHO we fight. Even O'Reilly's second definition of the Bush Doctrine addresses method: The Bush Doctrine was to USE DEMOCRACY to eradicate terror. 2. IF you accept Palin's response as a knowledgeable articulation of one accepted definition of the Bush Doctrine, and IF O'Reilly or anyone actually believed Palin's response was acceptable, then you CANNOT complain about "gotcha journalism" showing up Palin unfairly, and you CANNOT make the claim that Palin is excused because the Bush Doctrine does not exist and nobody knows what it is. The ONLY thing you could reasonably claim was that Gibson was WRONG not to accept Palin's response at face value, as both a definition of the Bush Doctrine and an answer to the question. All you could say was that Gibson was factually inaccurate. So why all the wild floundering about how the Bush Doctrine doesn't really exist, and no one knows what it is, and O'Reilly doesn't know what it is, either, even though he knows and has talked on air about two related definitions that have nothing to do with what Palin said, and it was a "gotcha" question designed to make her look stupid, and actually she didn't look stupid, there was nothing wrong with anything she said in that interview, and, and, and... ? Me thinks the right wing doth protest too much. Naptaq ----------------- And she anwsered with a definition of the doctrine, but apperently it is not the one Mr.Gibson meant, according to Karl Rove. You would not accept an Obama strategist as a credible source one could name drop in defense of a candidate from their own party. There is no way in hell Republican strategist Karl Rove has any noteworthy credibility on this issue. Karl Rove is the same guy that the Daily Show, a comedy shows for chrissakes, caught out saying that it would be a poor choice, "obviously political" (rather than practical) for Obama to choose a Virginian governor for his running mate because he had been governor for only two years and only mayor of a small city before that, I believe was the objection. As compared to Palin, who was governor for less than two years and mayor of a very small town prior to that. So yeah, let's not bring Rove into this. Naptaq ---------------- So, she got it right. False. Reality does not bend to your desires, no matter what you read in The Secret. [edited again to fix formatting errors]
|
|
|
Post by Naptaq on Nov 13, 2008 18:08:22 GMT -5
Karl Rove knows more about the 'bush doctrines' than a wikipedia entry. It's like asking about a 'Clinton doctrine' and calling in a Democrat strategist to ask him about it. It's all fair game, and the way it's done on Fox. You hate O'Reilly and see lies where there are none. Alright.
And I'm sorry you don't understand my point about O'Reilly exaggerating. I don't care where you think there is a joke or not.
And finally I do admit that I change my position when I see that I was wrong. That's because I haven't finished reading the classic work: 'How to be a raging ring winger 101' ;D jk
|
|
|
Post by Farouche on Nov 13, 2008 22:06:54 GMT -5
Naptaq -------------- Karl Rove knows more about the 'bush doctrines' than a wikipedia entry. Karl Rove is a REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST well known for his keen abilities to spin things to political advantage. The Bush Doctrine is NOT a Republican term; it's a MEDIA term and a POLITICAL term. Karl Rove is not an adequate source in this case. Would you trust a top Democratic spin doctor to analyze a Democrat's suitability for office, or to vindicate Keith Olbermann? Of course not! You'd be screaming "liberal bias!" at the top of your lungs. You do that when presented with links to CNN, for Pete's sake. How could you possibly expect anyone to look at Karl Rove as a credible source? Naptaq -------------- And I'm sorry you don't understand my point about O'Reilly exaggerating. Oh believe me, I understand, and I've refuted you at every turn, while you refuse to respond directly to the majority of what I've said. Please don't pretend otherwise. Here's the progression of your argument again: 1. O'Reilly wasn't talking about the Bush Doctrine when he mentioned the Bush Doctrine. He was being 100% truthful when he said "I don't know what the Bush Doctrine is."
2. O'Reilly was talking about the Bush Doctrine, but the Bush Doctrine doesn't exist, so he said "I don't know what the Bush Doctrine is" because no one can know about something that doesn't exist.
3. O'Reilly knew what the Bush Doctrine was, and the Bush Doctrine is very very very obscure but it exists and has several related definitions, and O'Reilly was referring to the fact that he doesn't know all of the nuances of all possible definitions of the phrase when he said, being serious, "I don't know what the Bush Doctrine is."
4. Even though the concept is super incredibly obscure, O'Reilly knew what the Bush Doctrine was, but he was just joking/exaggerating when he said he didn't know what it was (despite having presented *two* slightly differing variations of his definition of the Bush Doctrine on his show). His statement was merely *symbolic* of the fact that many people do not know any definition of the Bush Doctrine, so only the "That was just ridiculous. It's all gotcha gotcha gotcha" part was serious. Either O'Reilly outright LIED, or he was DISHONEST by "joking" on national television that he had no idea what the Bush Doctrine was, when viewers would be apt to take him at his word, and then by using that "joke" as the basis for calling Charlie Gibson's interview unfair and partisan "gotcha" journalism. Naptaq -------------- And finally I do admit that I change my position when I see that I was wrong. Good, so you admit that originally you believed that O'Reilly was being absolutely serious when he said "I don't know what the Bush Doctrine is." You defended him and insisted that he was talking about "his plans on foreign policy," and that he had been completely truthful when he said "I don't know what the Bush Doctrine is." You admit that O'Reilly defined the Bush Doctrine when he said, on air four years ago, "The Bush Doctrine is to take the fight to the terrorists." Then, when it became clear that the Bush Doctrine existed, O'Reilly had definitely defined it on air, and he would had to have been LYING if he was serious when he said "I don't know what the Bush Doctrine is," you suddenly decided that, since it was *inconceivable* that O'Reilly would lie, he then had to have been joking. But at no point did you ever outright acknowledge that you were changing your mind. I asked you repeatedly to acknowledge that O'Reilly had indeed defined the Bush Doctrine in that YouTube clip, and you refused to admit it, preferring instead to malign MY motives and my irrepressible bias for insisting that O'Reilly had defined the Bush Doctrine in that clip. You are admitting, then, that you were wrong about, very specifically, whether Bill O'Reilly had defined what the Bush Doctrine was, and that you then refused to admit that you had been wrong, preferring instead to waffle through a series of excuses in order to defend your assertion that "liberals" were just too blinded by bias and hatred of O'Reilly to agree with your interpretation of his words. It would have been nice if you had actually recanted and admitted to being wrong initially, rather than continuing to insist you were 100% correct and unbiased and that I was being both partisan and malicious in contradicting you.
|
|
|
Post by Naptaq on Nov 14, 2008 8:12:52 GMT -5
Would you trust a top Democratic spin doctor to analyze a Democrat's suitability for office For a definiton on a 'doctrine', yes. Yes, exactly, joking is dishonest! ;D jk And the fact is that it was on Latterman, involed a term that had many incarnations and is obscure to the general public. I don't know if he was joking or not. But I'm inclined to think that he was, because when O'Reilly does this kind of shows, jokes and self-deprication are in full swing. Maybe he was. After all, there are 4 different version of it. He was. However, now I see that that is also one of the versions of the doctrine. I don't know if anybody told you this but you repeat your arguments, in a rather essayistic style, throughout the posts you make. I got it the first time - and you'd save some time. But that's just my suggestion, you can write anyway you like as long as there isn't too much vulgarity. Right, my only mention of it was 'I backtracked'. But hey it's all water under the bridge now. Right. I might have to go to Catholic confession again. ;D This kind of stuff is annoying. I backtracked, as I wrote, after finding that transcript. I changed my mind. It happens. I was wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Farouche on Nov 14, 2008 15:28:12 GMT -5
Naptaq -------------- For a definiton on a 'doctrine', yes. No. You do not seem to grasp what presidential doctrines are. American children take several years of American Government in which we learn about the concept of a presidential doctrine, and believe me, it's not something that the president OR HIS FRIENDS get to define. So in your own words, "don't give me this crap." Naptaq --------------- I don't know if he was joking or not. But I'm inclined to think that he was, because when O'Reilly does this kind of shows, jokes and self-deprication are in full swing. I assure you that he wasn't joking at that point. If he meant it to be a joke, he was being VERY DISHONEST by making it so unclear that you "don't know if he was joking or not" even though that is your only defense against the concept that he LIED. To me this sounds like, "I don't think he was joking, either, but that's the only thing that keeps it from being a lie, and I can't believe O'Reilly would ever lie, so if it sounds like a lie, it must have been a joke." Naptaq --------------- Maybe he was. After all, there are 4 different version of it. Four different VERY similar versions. Only one definition would suffice in order to "know" what the Bush Doctrine is, and O'Reilly had two personal definitions on file that we know of. If he was serious, then he lied. If he was joking, he was dishonest. Naptaq -------------- He was. However, now I see that that is also one of the versions of the doctrine. YES. I find it curious that you would not admit outright that you had changed your position through many posts, despite being asked numerous times to do so, and instead switched from one argument to another without stating that you had abandoned the earlier argument that was the whole point of this exchange in the first place. I also find it odd that you don't seem to feel the least bit ashamed or remorseful that you insinuated all liberal criticisms of O'Reilly, and specifically the claim that he had known about the Bush Doctrine, necessarily stemmed from unfounded hatred and personal bias, when you now agree that the claim in this case was correct. Interesting to note is that you initially said those things on the basis that O'Reilly was definitely serious about not knowing what the Bush Doctrine was, under the belief liberals were trying to make him out to be a liar by falsely claiming that he had defined the doctrine on-air. You didn't just amend your position; you flipped it around completely, because you started out with the assumptions that O'Reilly would not lie and that liberal criticisms were malicious misrepresentations, forcing you to contort your arguments to fit those assumptions. Naptaq ---------------- I don't know if anybody told you this but you repeat your arguments, in a rather essayistic style, throughout the posts you make. Not every point can be best presented in a single short sentence. I repeat my arguments because you refuse to respond the first time, leaving me to assume that you either did not get the information, or you were unable/unwilling to give an adequate response. If you want to debate fairly, you have to be willing and able to address your opponent's points. Now, if you got the bit about O'Reilly LYING before, I'm curious as to why you did not respond to say that yes, he may have been... LYING. Because that's been the whole point of this exchange. It is very unusual for a participant in a debate to just shrug and say "so what?" when it turns out his entire premise was wrong. Naptaq ------------- I got it the first time - and you'd save some time. But that's just my suggestion, you can write anyway you like as long as there isn't too much vulgarity. Vulgarity? You are NOT insinuating that I've been "vulgar." Perhaps you would like me to get vulgar, to give you something new to try and "moderate" me over. Naptaq --------------- Right, my only mention of it was 'I backtracked'. But hey it's all water under the bridge now. No. It's not. You don't get to make that call. You claimed that no one could say what I said about Bill O'Reilly unless they were blinded by bias and hatred of O'Reilly. Now you're airily brushing it all aside. "So I may have maligned your character over something I now agree was correct. So what?" I will tell you what. It is very poor form to say that someone is making a claim purely out of malice; to say this based on a very specific claim; then to move the goalposts and change your whole argument, WITHOUT making it clear that you're doing so, despite being asked; to continue to imply malicious motives on the part of your opponent; and then when forced, to testily shrug off the fact that all your main arguments were false and your position now rests on the "he might have been joking" defense, and that you willfully jumped to the conclusion that your opponent's claims were made in bad faith. Naptaq ---------------- Right. I might have to go to Catholic confession again. ;D You might first try applying that humility among us mere mortals. Naptaq ---------------- This kind of stuff is annoying.
I backtracked, as I wrote, after finding that transcript. I changed my mind. It happens. I was wrong. I cannot tell you how much I don't care what you find "annoying." I find it REALLY, really annoying that it takes two pages of repeating myself over and over and over to get you to concede that O'Reilly was either DISHONEST or outright LIED, something you are still unwilling to unambiguously admit, and that you still see nothing wrong with having repeatedly and instinctually attacked the personal character and motives of those who criticize O'Reilly, without first making a good-faith effort to determine if those criticisms had a basis in reality. There are three points in this exchange that I would appreciate if you would openly concede: 1. Bill O'Reilly is not at all times fair, balanced, and honest, as demonstrated by his lie/dishonest joke in saying "The Bush Doctrine? I don't know what that is."
2. Since the Bush Doctrine exists, Charlie Gibson's question, "do you agree with the Bush Doctrine?" was a fair question, and not "gotcha."
3. It was unfair of you to insinuate that liberals who criticize O'Reilly do so only because they are necessarily hateful, blinded by bias, and eager to do or say anything to make O'Reilly look bad, without your even bothering to consider the specific claims. And that's it. If you can admit those three things I'll be pretty much satisfied.
|
|
|
Post by Naptaq on Nov 14, 2008 15:49:58 GMT -5
There are three points in this exchange that I would appreciate if you would openly concede: [...] No.
|
|
|
Post by Farouche on Nov 14, 2008 15:57:07 GMT -5
Naptaq ------------
No.
Maybe you'd rather just admit that you're an extremely bad sport, then?
|
|
|
Post by Naptaq on Nov 14, 2008 16:10:47 GMT -5
Naptaq ------------
No.
Maybe you'd rather just admit that you're an extremely bad sport, then? Ok, I'm a bad sport for having my own opinion on the matter. ;D jk
|
|
|
Post by Farouche on Nov 14, 2008 16:18:56 GMT -5
Naptaq ------------------- Ok, I'm a bad sport for having my own opinion on the matter. ;D jk Oh, that's right. Mustn't let facts or logic get in the way of a nice juicy opinion. Heil truthiness!
|
|
|
Post by Sweet Pea on Nov 14, 2008 16:56:11 GMT -5
this seems to be getting rather personal, guys. maybe you should take it to pm?
|
|
|
Post by Farouche on Nov 14, 2008 17:30:24 GMT -5
Sweet Pea ------------- this seems to be getting rather personal, guys. maybe you should take it to pm? Heh, PM. We've been there and back again, but 'sok, I think we're all through. Zzzzzip!
|
|
|
Post by Naptaq on Jan 10, 2009 10:28:56 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Sweet Pea on Jan 10, 2009 14:08:00 GMT -5
sarah palin suffers from the same thing that all ultra-conservative right wing religious political figures do - the american public tends to sniff out hypocrisy pretty well. anyone that preaches certain rules for living will be expected to adhere to those rules themselves. if you're preaching fiscal conservatism but wasting exorbitant amounts on looking good, they're going to call you out on it. if you're preaching the value of marriage but toting around unmarried pregnant teenage kids, they're going to call you out on it. etc etc. she also made many classic bumbles with the press. this was due to her inexperience. the american public doesn't want an inexperienced bumbler running the country. they've given her feedback. she will either learn from it and improve her politicking, or she'll never make it to a national office with a high public profile. it's pretty simple. and by the way. obama didn't win simply because sarah palin failed in her bid to be vice president. he won because the conservatives in power for the last eight years have abused their power. he won because a majority of voters wanted to see a different color in the oval office. it was time. even if obama doesn't do everything i like while in office (a sure thing), i'm glad he was elected. one thing about his election that is really great is how so many people feel included now. a woman i work with is going to the inauguration with her whole family. they are hardworking people with tight budgets, but the whole family is flying together all the way across the country to see this man inaugurated. this morning i overheard her teaching her little boy how to say 'obama'. it was so cute! she is african american. her little boy is half mexican american (and totally adorable i might add). they feel represented now. they feel included in our public life. they feel like full participants. i think this is a good thing. it makes our country better, stronger, and more stable when everyone feels included. and i'm glad they're so happy about obama's election. if his election accomplished nothing else, it would be worth it. but i'm sure obama has alot more to contribute actually, especially in terms of adjusting our priorities.
|
|
|
Post by Naptaq on Jan 10, 2009 16:05:11 GMT -5
Yeah it was pretty awesome to see the reaction of the black community when Obama was elected. I didn't expect that to happen. I hope he succeeds while in office.
The media made a big deal out of the Katie Couric anwser when it was nothing. Fumbled an anwser. So what? If it was Obama nobody from the liberal press would say anything. You could hear crickets. That's the real hypocrisy.
No, it weren't her clothes. Still aren't.
The big thing that has driven hatred towards her, in my opinion, was her being a woman and supporting the pro-life position. And her daughter didn't abort. And again, Obama says my family is off-limits, and that was okay. The same didn't apply to Palin, as we have seen.
I don't know if you've seen the clip, but I've seen that Olbermann and a couple of others from MSNBC attacked it, which usually means it's honest & true.
|
|