Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it,
follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given
their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!
[Politics] Julia Hall: Obama's Possibly Planted Question and Reactions
Posts
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
You can only tell when someone is editorializing if there is a chiron telling you they are? I'll give you a tip, when the show is named after a person, it's probably going to be an editorial segment. When it is called 'CNN Newsroom' it is not. You can also look at the time of day. If it's when people are normally at work, it's the news. If it's prime time, it's not.
This isn't a hard and fast rule. Anderson Cooper is generally anchoring, rather than being a part of the commentariate, but its more true than false. Of course idiots reading other idiots tweets during the news period is degrading even that thin veneer of respectable news gathering.
Wow, I knew you'd pull this goalpost-moving shit, despite the fact the original post several pages back is perfectly clear. I've already explained the difference between what I typed, which was in response to - as you acknowledge existing - the argument that the old media was "too busy trying to find out why Obama is a socialist" and would make no sense whatsoever if it was arguing that the media never covered the story. Why the hell would I explicitly exclude Fox, which is the only network I listed there known to be institutionally biased against Obama? How does it make any sense in the context of the preceding sentence from my quoted response:
if I'm talking about merely covering the story at all? Why, in response to that, does Veitsev say:
if he read my post as arguing that the MSM never covered it at all?
Why do I immediately respond:
This was all before you posted your irrelevent videos, and all involve the basic premise that I was talking about the idea the Networks were endorsing the stories, not merely reporting them. The fact is, nothing that came before your posted video makes sense if I was arguing that the networks never even reported the birther/socialist stories.
Abram is not the "definition of a plant." A plant is a campaign/candidate inserting someone who they instruct to ask/say a particular thing. A supporter going to a meeting and asking a predictable question is not that.
my unofficial autobio will be accompanied with tips on how to smile
cause I've found that when they don't see you frown, they never know that you're a threat
and they don't sweat you when you came around
I mean, 'cable news sucks' is hardly a controversial point to make. Network News is generally alright and certainly sucks a great deal less, but it's still below the optimum level for getting to be knowledgeable about the world at large. Chiefly due to the restrictions of the medium.
She was an important member of a website created with the intention of coordinating and inserting her accusations.
I don't know, does this mean that the opposition is physically incapable of planting a question since they don't really control the venue? Or is it possible for the founder/high up member of a movement to act as a plant since they are basically inserting themselves at their own volition?
edit: and yes, the opposition can't "plant" anyone because they don't control the venue. The colloquial term for what Abram was is a bird-dog.
my unofficial autobio will be accompanied with tips on how to smile
cause I've found that when they don't see you frown, they never know that you're a threat
and they don't sweat you when you came around
So a large majority of the programming on the CNN and MSNBC 24-hour news networks don't count in determining what CNN and MSNBC report? Scarborough and Dobbs are both "anchors." CNN Newsroom features "News and Analysis." Dobbs and Scarborough and every other named show? "News and Analysis." The distinction is an artificial one invented in order to reduce the accountability of the named shows.
The idea that you can simply re-label the by-far most watched news shows on the 24-hour news networks as opinion and that this in someway means there are no reports on MSNBC or CNN regarding this non-sense is self-deception at best
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
When is a bird a dog?
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
Yes. In the same sense a large chunk of what the New York Times, Washington Post, and Wall Street Journal prints don't count in determining what NYT, WaPo and the Journal reports.
No, they are personalities or hosts. And the distinction is rather apparent and the distinction fairly objective. It's the difference between a story, a column, and an op-ed. It may be fairly blurred thanks to info-tainment, but there is still a line there. If you want to take PR blurbs over convention and your lying eyes feel free.
Who's re-labeling them? They would have to have been labeled journalism in the first place in order to re-label at as something else, and they have always been editorializing. I'm frankly shocked that you ever felt differently. If you want to knock them for giving jackasses a megaphone and tacitly endorsing their points of view good on you. The fact that WaPo prints bullshit from George Will and Bill Kristol, some of it debunked in the very same issue that went to press, just shines poorly on WaPo's editorial staff. Not their reporters. Does Nightline influence how you view World News?
If you really need to know, start from post 53 on page 3, then keep reading until page 66 if you don't want to follow several pages of pointless-back-and-forth. I think everything that needed to be said about it happened in that block of posts.
Also; a plane.
Birddogging means following an elected official, candidate or other political individual around looking for ways to trip them up and catch it on tape (or get other people to do it for you). Political activists attending and disrupting townhalls hosted by officials they disagree with are effectively birddogging a caged bird.
It's not technically planting, though.
GT: batshido Hit me up on ME3.
I did not however attend any town halls, is it normal to walk past a bunch of signs into a building and then write down your question?
I know during the democratic primaries here in vegas with the famous jewelry question to Hilary what had happened was they made everyone submit two questions, on serious and one more lighthearted. The poor girl was told to ask her lighthearted jewelry question. Which lead to the media shit storm of "ZOMG UNLV STUDENTS ARE IDIOTS!"
Anyway, I am biased and have little respect for our current, or previous president. I admit however that I would not be shocked to learn a politician with an agenda worked to forward that agenda by any quasi legal means necessary. How do you tell when a politician is lying? His lips are moving.
On the one hand, maybe the child was a plant. Did anybody really think that a young girl would voluntarily go sit through a town hall on health care reform and then be bold enough to ask a long, well-written question without significant preparation by her parents, whether they were pro- or anti-?
And on the flipside, does anybody seriously believe that this was an attempt to fool people somehow, using the precociousness of a little girl to deceive whoever could not figure out the previous question into believing that Obama is right about health care reform, because the little girl agrees with him?
And then is that really any worse than taking what was presented as an obvious bit of stagecraft and representing it as a malicious attempt to deceive, when it could really only be, at worst, a really dumb attempt to fool the really dumb?
I mean really. Let the little girl ask her question. Or do you want to make her cry?
(Also, the thing that was different about Bush's townhalls wasn't that there were softball questions, but rather that they were all softball questions, which made the entire event into stagecraft, which was fine, since really, it was only preaching to the choir and it's not like they're ever going to let people who hate the President be in a presidential town hall anyways, so who cares? Tomorrow - The President doesn't write his own speeches?! We have been betrayed!)
I've always written down my question right before asking it so I don't screw it up. Though I've never been to a town hall that was protested. Chiefly because most things don't get protested.
That was a Presidential debate hosted by a news organization. They screened everything possible. We don't know the level of screening for this town hall, and considering some of the questions it doesn't seem as if sycophants were the only ones who could apply.
For one, even assuming the absolute worst, how is this only quasi-legal? For two,
What planted eleven year old girl?
What lies?
Because 9% think it's too high, and shouldn't be cut! 9% of respondents could not fully
get their arms around the question. There should be another box you can check for, "I
have utterly no idea what you're talking about. Please, God, don't ask for my input."
Yeah, the girl was legitimate. LOL
About the lies, here ya go.
http://www.facs.org/news/obama081209.html
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
Until proved otherwise, yes.
Anything more than getting one set of numbers wrong on an example? Or was this repetitive?
They are misrepresenting what Obama said. The "$30-50,000" figure was meant to represent the cost of the procedure, not the surgeon's compensation.
Hey, woah there juice, don't get your "facts" all mixed up in this now.
Sigh... if you clicked on the URL I posted you would have had your answer. So yes, President Obama is known for lying to push his failed (as of today) agenda.
Here's a quote from a WSJ article on Obama's comment.
To me, he wasn't saying that surgeons are corrupt so much as he was saying that the reimbursement system is susceptible to exploitation.
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
Hope everyone likes arugula on their pizza.
EDIT: Oh shit, tonsillectomy? Like it or not but that shit is controversial right now. And not in the flu vaccine causes autism kind of controversy.
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
my unofficial autobio will be accompanied with tips on how to smile
cause I've found that when they don't see you frown, they never know that you're a threat
and they don't sweat you when you came around
plant=Asked by the speaker to show up and ask a question that will make him look good.
Plant doesn't=coerced by mother to ask the Speaker something that will make him look good.
Why can't people tell the difference? One is something Obama has control over the other he doesn't. One we have no proof happened, the other we can be damn sure happened.
My Band "The Wicked Girls" http://soundcloud.com/the-wicked-girls/sets
In any case, gigEsmalls should have researched things before proclaiming that Obama is a liar.
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
President Obama was either lying or talking out of his ass like a fool, which is it?
Yeah surgeons are just defending their profession. LOL.
Or he has looked at something controversial and thinks that one side is right and the other isn't? Like I said tonsillectomies aren't free of controversy and there is a debate going on in that community.
From personal experience, this is a load of horseshit. When I was a kid, we were on an HMO and I came down with strep throat that was unresponsive to antibiotics. The doctor basically kept refusing to authorize a tonsillectomy for six months and simply kept trying to load me up with antibiotics as I got sicker and sicker, all because the doctor was trying to avoid incurring the expense of a tonsillectomy, until my grandmother went into the doctor's office and had it out with him, that he authorizes the surgery or else.
Back to whether the kid was a plant, I would say it's likely, or that the kid was definitely coached. But they all do it. Obama is a good, charismatic speaker that keeps his cool and people can still have that weird sense of pride that we've elected a black man as president (another story, but in short, I really don't give a shit what someone's race is, especially in elections, because policy is the only thing that matters), but at the end of the day, he's still just a politician. Last year during the election, Hillary Clinton got a lot of heat because basically every single one of her Q&As were all directed and coached and it was so blatantly obvious. They all do it, even Obama. I don't know why anyone is even remotely surprised, unless they've been living under a rock this whole time (and lunatic right wingers can crawl back under that rock for all I care).
My Band "The Wicked Girls" http://soundcloud.com/the-wicked-girls/sets
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
Dude, every bit of evidence points to the fact that our reimbursement system increases costs and causes unnecessary operations, which is why all those clinics that keep doctors on salary can keep costs low. If you're talking about the price figure, it's already been pointed out that he was referring to what a person pays for something, not what the surgeon pockets after expenses.