Journal pudge's Journal: Extra Obama Coverage Justified 54
A lot of conservatives complain that Obama gets more news coverage. While it is, of course, true that Obama gets a lot more coverage, the point of news coverage is to try to tell us things we don't know, and as we still have no idea what Obama actually stands for, the extra news coverage is warranted, isn't it?
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
A hidden assertion: (Score:2)
as we still have no idea what Obama actually stands for, the extra news coverage is warranted, isn't it?
You seem to imply a correlation between amount of coverage and "idea [of] what Obama actually stands for"
Thus far, the slow-motion replay of the coverage seems to show a dive for the center, overall.
Whether or not this equates to "standing for" something will be an exercise for the historians, becuase it's not clear that the soundbite analysis yields meaning.
McCain isn't doing too well, either. His attack ad about the injured troop visit is about a millimeter thick. Better to have simply gone and visit
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to imply a correlation between amount of coverage and "idea [of] what Obama actually stands for"
I imply that there SHOULD be a correlation. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Shrug. Without shoulds, we would never change.
Re: (Score:2)
Hence my cringing cynicism.
Re: (Score:2)
Save the cynicism for AFTER the media elects Obama!
Re: (Score:2)
My tactical cynicism says that the Mainstream Media College will go over as well as, say, the British Parliament did in the 1770s.
My unaware, redneck dad called yesterday and was particularly pissed about the Chosen One, and the overall government non-command of energy policy. (Can't figure out whose head is more deeply planted: the Executive or Legislative branch's)
My strategic cynicism says that it may not matter. Irrespective of who is elected, there will be mo
Re: (Score:1)
Without shoulds, we would never change
Hey! Isn't that Obama's message?
Sorry. Couldn't resist.
Re: (Score:2)
Without shoulds, we would never change
Hey! Isn't that Obama's message?
Sorry. Couldn't resist.
No need to apologize.
The difference is, I can say what needs to change, and why.
I was... (Score:1)
I was thinking the same thing when the NYT wouldn't publish McCain's letter after they had published Obama's. Reading the text of McCain's letter was actually encouraging as he called out Obama on a number of issues.
I still do not like McCain, but I would rather he win in November, not that he is likely to get my vote.
Media Tan-Shirts doing there job... (Score:1, Troll)
He sounds so much like Benito Mussolini it's scary. Add in that speech at Victory Plaza in Germany - and I've decided to NOT write in a candidate.
I'm going to hold my nose and vote for John McCain, simply to have the best shot of defeating Barack Hussein Obama in the election.
Re: (Score:2)
C'mon, leftoid moonbat - post and list reasons why Barack Hussein Obama ISN'T the ideological equivalent of Benito Mussolini.
Re: (Score:2)
I love it when liberals mod me down instead of challenging the point I made.
You made no argument to challenge though. Your unsupported assertion can be countered with, "I disagree." When you put a foundation under your point, I'll bring my wrecking ball.
C'mon, leftoid moonbat - post and list reasons why Barack Hussein Obama ISN'T the ideological equivalent of Benito Mussolini.
Well, everyone knows that the left side of an equation has to have the same significant digits as the right side, so I'll just toss up the same kind of vacuous "logic" you posted instead...
Obama is exactly the cult-of-personality type the Founding Fathers warned us about.
I disagree.
He sounds so much like Benito Mussolini it's scary. Add in that speech at Victory Plaza in Germany - and I've decided to NOT write in a candidate.
He sounds so much like JFK, it's intriguing.
Re: (Score:2)
He sounds so much like JFK, it's intriguing.
You're saying JFK said almost entirely vapid and meaningless things to get elected?
How rude.
Re: (Score:2)
No...but it is demonstrably rude, and illogical, to narrowly frame someone else's words negatively just to suit your rhetorical needs.
But in your defense, it is an easy tool for distracting fools when debating. You really should find one to try it on.
Re: (Score:2)
No...but it is demonstrably rude, and illogical, to narrowly frame someone else's words negatively just to suit your rhetorical needs.
But in your defense ...
Holdonasec. You are accusing ME of doing what YOU are doing.
What's the word for that?
Re: (Score:1)
In the case of Obama = Mussolini, there's no need to narrowly frame his words - there's a (growing) mountain of evidence that shows that Obama is a near ideological twin to Benito Mussolini, in his speeches, actions, and campaign styles.
I've listed just some of the examples in my latest JE, and the similarities I've listed are just the tip of the iceberg.
Re: (Score:1)
OK, I visited your journal. Very verbose, thank you for all your work. I hope you don't mind my quoting you extensively.
Why? Because he's rumored to be on the list for Barack Hussein Obama's VP.
Hey, I see what you did there. I don't suppose you know what Hussein means, do you? I should look that up.
And rule #1 in covering the Obamessiah is that you don't report anything potentially bad or embarassing for the Obamessiah.
Because we all know there's a giant media conspiracy, and journalists are not really just people (they all have implants that make them follow orders).
A liberal in Pudge's journal tried to bait me into a pointless flamewar over my assertion that Obama is the ideological equivalent to Benito Mussolini. (Another liberal was a coward and tried to mod-bomb me with a bunch of "overrated" mods and a troll mod.)
Neither of those people is/was me (I am a staunch conservative myself).
Mussolini was a strong supporter of nationalist sentiments such as "unity", scheduling vacuous holidays like "Brotherhood Day" (ahem, or Earth Day today) and Obama has taken this page from the fascist handbook and run. He (Obama) talks about vague, abstract concepts like unity, hope, change, and doesn't give a whole lot of substance. If elected, I wouldn't be at all surprised if Obama created a new holiday - something like "racial healing" day or the like. Barack Hussein Obama says very little of substance in his speeches...
You are right. In this regard George W. Bush, Benito Musso
Re: (Score:1)
And yet you claim to be a staunch conservative? Hm. Nice try.
The vast majority of conservatives look back with fondness for the Reagan years.
My grandmother knew Ronald Reagan personally. (Score:1)
Perhaps you are confusing NEOconservatives with ACTUAL conservatives. Common mistake.
NEOconservatives love fiscal irresponsibility, so they deify Reagan.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps you are confusing NEOconservatives with ACTUAL conservatives. Common mistake.
NEOconservatives love fiscal irresponsibility, so they deify Reagan.
Perhaps you're confusing Reagan with his Democratic Congress. Reagan's proposed budgets were balanced, overall.
Nice try, Mr. Closet Liberal.
Re: (Score:2)
Neither of those people is/was me (I am a staunch conservative myself).
I have never before heard of or met an actual conservative who supported Obama. I am curious as how you can reconcile Obama's many unconstitutional positions (mostly abridgments of the Tenth Amendmens, but also to a lesser degree the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth) with your previous "active[] campaigning" [slashdot.org] for him, because that makes no sense to me.
I am tempted to believe you are not being fully honest, but I await your reply before I form any judgments.
Re: (Score:2)
The "I know you are but what am I" gambit? Now that's a step backward for us, isn't it? At least your previous joust had some rhetorical sophistication.
I'm dying of curiosity, though. What comment did I recast in a self-suiting manner again?
Re: (Score:2)
The "I know you are but what am I" gambit?
Back up just a little bit.
I made a claim about Obama: that what he says is almost entirely vapid and meaningless. Rather than discussing my claim -- not that you need to do so -- you instead made an ad hominem attack against me. I merely pointed out the fact that you were doing that.
So it's more of a "Doctor, it hurts when I do this / then don't do that" gambit.
Re: (Score:2)
I made a claim about Obama: that what he says is almost entirely vapid and meaningless.
While we're backing up a bit, you actually said this:
You're saying JFK said almost entirely vapid and meaningless things to get elected?
How rude.
Clearly, you didn't make any direct assertion about Obama at all.
Rather, you recast my vaguely complimentary comment as a negative assessment of JFK. In logical terms it was a non sequitur with regard to critiquing Obama, and in the context of the discussion it was an intentional, self-serving move to facilitate accusing me of rudeness.
In total, it was a blatant rhetorical diversion that I flagged as such. I also suggested you try it on someone other th
Re: (Score:2)
Clearly, you didn't make any direct assertion about Obama at all.
False. I absolutely did. You dishonestly snipped the context, where you said, "[Obama] sounds so much like JFK, it's intriguing." So obviously, what I said in reply to that was necessarily a direct assertion about Obama.
Rather, you recast my vaguely complimentary comment as a negative assessment of JFK.
What I did was take your insipid attempt to lift up Obama by vaguely linking him to someone most people admire, and turn it on its head. Nothing wrong with that at all.
In logical terms it was a non sequitur with regard to critiquing Obama
No moreso than your praise of Obama.
and in the context of the discussion it was an intentional, self-serving move to facilitate accusing me of rudeness.
False. It was intentional and self-serving, just as your post was. But in no way w
Re: (Score:2)
Well, clearly we are battling some tough odds at finding common ground. That's too bad.
Clearly, you didn't make any direct assertion about Obama at all.
False. I absolutely did...you said, "[Obama] sounds so much like JFK, it's intriguing." So obviously, what I said in reply to that was necessarily a direct assertion about Obama.
So...any reply is "necessarily a direct assertion" just because it's a reply. Well, then, to that, uh, flawless logic I must respond, "I think Rice Krispies are tasty with blueberries."
Seriously, accusing me of disparaging one man (JFK) in the course of complimenting another man (BHO) is in no way a direct assertion about either of those parties. It's directed at me. Your opinion on Obama was only implicit in your acc
Re: (Score:2)
Clearly, you didn't make any direct assertion about Obama at all.
False. I absolutely did...you said, "[Obama] sounds so much like JFK, it's intriguing." So obviously, what I said in reply to that was necessarily a direct assertion about Obama.
So...any reply is "necessarily a direct assertion" just because it's a reply.
No. It is necessarily a direct assertion because my words were, by the rules of English, necessarily referring to Obama. Try to keep up, mmmmkay?
Seriously, accusing me of disparaging one man (JFK) ...
You keep saying I did that, when it is clear to everyone I did no such thing.
You dishonestly snipped the context
It's brevity, not dishonesty. The context is readily available in the thread; must we repost every prior word each time to avoid this kind of nonsense? Can't we please just be grown-ups instead?
See, no, that's MY line. It is obviously dishonest, because if you had included your line, it would have become apparent that what you said I did wasn't true.
Rather, you recast my vaguely complimentary comment as a negative assessment of JFK.
What I did was take your insipid attempt to lift up Obama by vaguely linking him to someone most people admire, and turn it on its head. Nothing wrong with that at all.
Logically speaking, what you said was ad hominem and non sequitur.
False. For me to have done that, I would have had to say something about you, which I did not do. You really are bad at this.
In logical terms it was a non sequitur with regard to critiquing Obama
No moreso than your praise of Obama.
Was my reply just as logically flawed as yours?
Ha
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently I missed the "obvious" sarcasm and humor in your reply to my post. Fine, my bad. I didn't read it that way, and I still don't see the funny part, but I'll give you the respect of taking your word for it. Guess ideology and senses of humor are two of our differences. That's cool.
We also differ in our definition of a direct assertion. I have to take one more run at that.
You think your part in this exchange is a direct criticism of Obama:
[Obama] sounds so much like JFK, it's intriguing.
You're saying JFK said almost entirely vapid and meaningless things to get elected?
How rude.
I think your criticism of Obama is not explicit or direct
Re: (Score:2)
You think your part in this exchange is a direct criticism of Obama:
It obviously is.
I think your criticism of Obama is not explicit or direct, because you don't mention him whatsoever.
Just because it is IMPLIED, rather than EXPLICIT, does not mean it is INDIRECT, rather than DIRECT. It was quite direct. I referred to him directly and unmistakably, by the context. There is no way to read that as referring to anyone else.
Let me put it another way: from what I wrote -- assuming I meant to write what I wrote -- it is NOT POSSIBLE that I was NOT referring to Obama.
The criticism is apparent in context, but still entirely implicit from a rhetorical standpoint.
Again, implicit != indirect.
Please tell me you see the difference. I beg you.
No. There is absolutely no meaningful difference. I defy you to explain what actu
Re: (Score:2)
Just because it is IMPLIED, rather than EXPLICIT, does not mean it is INDIRECT, rather than DIRECT. It was quite direct. I referred to him directly and unmistakably, by the context. There is no way to read that as referring to anyone else.
Odd. It seems like your understanding of the definition for implied/implicit is not congruent with mine, Noah Webster's [merriam-webster.com] and this online dictionary [thefreedictionary.com] too.
Let me put it another way: You're wrong by definition.
No. There is absolutely no meaningful difference. I defy you to explain what actual difference in meaning there is between the two.
That's muddled thinking. There is a meaningful difference in how it's said, but there is no difference in meaning regarding what was said.
For example, one could say, "The chicken laid a dozen eggs," or one could say, "The chicken laid the same number of eggs that would fit in a standard egg carton."
Ther
Re: (Score:2)
Odd. It seems like your understanding of the definition for implied/implicit is not congruent with mine
Perhaps.
Noah Webster's [merriam-webster.com] and this online dictionary [thefreedictionary.com] too.
Incorrect. My definitions are perfectly congruent with theirs. Moving on.
There is absolutely no meaningful difference. I defy you to explain what actual difference in meaning there is between the two.
That's muddled thinking.
So you will have no problem explaining the difference.
... there is no difference in meaning regarding what was said.
So you are saying I'm right, and that there is no difference. Thanks. Moving on.
If you still disagree, I defy you to tell me precisely what information you gained. Inevitably, it will be more supposition than actual information.
Absent other data, it wouldn't be of substantial value. Viewed as part of an aggregate, it helps me calibrate where you are ideologically.
No, in fact, it doesn't. Please do not lie. It could only "help" you do that if you were to assume that you knew why I didn't respond, and as you do not, it cannot. You are lying to say otherwise. Again, please do not lie.
Re: (Score:2)
Beg pardon, I must add:
I referred to him directly and unmistakably, by the context.
The part after the comma contradicts the part before the "and".
There is no way to read that as referring to anyone else.
Let me put it another way: from what I wrote -- assuming I meant to write what I wrote -- it is NOT POSSIBLE that I was NOT referring to Obama.
No.
implicit != ambiguous
Re: (Score:2)
Beg pardon, I must add:
I referred to him directly and unmistakably, by the context.
The part after the comma contradicts the part before the "and".
Incorrect. I don't know where you get that nonsense, but it is has no basis in reality.
There is no way to read that as referring to anyone else.
Let me put it another way: from what I wrote -- assuming I meant to write what I wrote -- it is NOT POSSIBLE that I was NOT referring to Obama.
No.
In fact, yes.
implicit != ambiguous
Yes, so why are you treating it like it DOES? That is MY line. I was implicit. I was NOT ambiguous. At all.
Re: (Score:2)
Noah Webster's [merriam-webster.com] and this online dictionary [thefreedictionary.com] too.
Incorrect. My definitions are perfectly congruent with theirs. Moving on.
Well, just look at me and my daftness! I guess I just got confused because you said:
implied != indirect
And then I read all these actual definitions that said stuff like (emphasis added):
2: to involve or indicate by inference, association, or necessary consequence rather than by direct statement
4: to express indirectly --
(Webster's definition for "imply")
And then I saw this:
1. Implied or understood though not directly expressed
(thefreedictionary.com definition for "implicit")
But now I see how your statement that implied doe
Re: (Score:2)
Well, just look at me and my daftness! I guess I just got confused
Yes, you did.
You are equivocating. The sad thing is you don't KNOW you are equivocating. You do not understand that different words have different senses in different contexts. You've been fooled into thinking that every word means only one thing.
Yeah, if I had ever argued a difference in your intended meaning vs. mine, you'd have a point. I didn't ...
False.
Believe what you want to about my integrity.
Shrug. You lied. What that says about your relative integrity unconcerns me.
I'll count a lack of response as a lack of response regardless of motive.
Um, yes. The problem is that it does not tell you anything about the motive.
In the end, you appear complicit with the poster.
Once again, you are lying. It does not appear that way at all, unless you are going to hold a comple
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, you did.
"False."
You are equivocating. The sad thing is you don't KNOW you are equivocating.
The really sad thing is, evidence suggests that you probably don't even know what "equivocating" means.
You do not understand that different words have different senses in different contexts. You've been fooled into thinking that every word means only one thing.
Words mean whatever we agree they mean. Dictionaries are where we catalog our agreed definitions. If you're using words in a contrary "sense", then you're just spouting illiterate gibberish. "If the shoe fits..," comes to mind in your case.
Yeah, if I had ever argued a difference in your intended meaning vs. mine, you'd have a point. I didn't ...
False.
"I defy you" to prove that.
Yes, it is quite clear you do not care about slandering other people with your lies.
You mean to allege libel. Slander is a different type of defamation. It's a literacy thing, so I should cut you some slack. Any
Re: (Score:2)
The really sad thing is, evidence suggests that you probably don't even know what "equivocating" means.
Incorrect. I was using a word, quite clearly, in a certain and entirely legitimate way. You were using it in a different way and using that alternate sense of the word to say I was wrong. That is, in fact, what equivocating is.
Words mean whatever we agree they mean.
Incorrect. Words mean what each individual intends them to mean. The main thing is that everyone is clear in what they mean, especially from context, which I was, and which you ignored.
Dictionaries are where we catalog our agreed definitions.
Incorrect. The best dictionaries are where we catalogue ALL definitions, whether they are agre
Re: (Score:2)
Well...surprisingly accurate definitions for equivocating and libel/slander, though both are terribly misapplied to anything I've written.
Feel free to type the last characters on the thread, it's your journal after all. But I stand, and will continue to stand, uncorrected.
Re: (Score:2)
Well...surprisingly accurate definitions for equivocating and libel/slander
Thank you for finally admitting you were wrong.
... though both are terribly misapplied to anything I've written.
Obviously incorrect.
But I stand, and will continue to stand, uncorrected.
Also obviously incorrect. Reality is a bitch, ain't it?
OK, I'll say that. (Score:1)
He sounds so much like JFK, it's intriguing.
You're saying JFK said almost entirely vapid and meaningless things to get elected?
I'm pretty sure the OP didn't say that, but I will. (And I was actually alive at the time, BTW, though a wee child.)
How rude.
Nah, just realistic. All politicians say vapid and meaningless stuff as much as possible. You know how you can tell a politician is lying? His lips are moving!
Hey, I heard a guy say yesterday, "I'm voting for Obama because it's about time a black man took a turn at totally fucking up the country, and at least he can talk". I laughed so hard I nearly cried, but in retrospect it's probably t
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure the OP didn't say that, but I will. (And I was actually alive at the time, BTW, though a wee child.)
Oh sure, a Dem wouldn't say that.
All politicians say vapid and meaningless stuff as much as possible.
Even politicians who reject the politics of old!? No! Say it ain't so!
The main knocks against Obama are threefold. First, that he is extremely inexperienced and there's no reason to think he can handle the job. Second, that he is extremely leftward on many issues. Third, that he is a complete phony and fraud when it comes to his presentation of himself as a post-partisan unifier who wants to get down to the business of solving problems instead of playing politics.
All th
The more overt the better. (Score:2)
The less subtle that journalists are about trying to get everyone to vote in Obama, the better. This is far better than when they were still trying to maintain the facade of impartiality and professionalism, because a lot of people (most of the people?) who weren't paying close attention were still fooled then. These times are a victory for truth, for things being seen for what they really are. As Pravda was widely recognized as merely the publishing arm of the Soviet Communist Party, may most of our "truth
Re: (Score:1)
You don't seem to read the same media I do.
Around here (the United States of America) I don't see any "left wing" media, other than maybe Hustler and the Utne Reader.
Around here, people take shotguns into Unitarian Universalist Churches and murder church-goers in front of their children, because they hate liberals.
Around here, people believe that "conservative" and "liberal" are mutually incompatible - everybody's jettisoned the idea of a common language and speaks in code phrases that reek of Orwellian dou
Re: (Score:1)
The shooter was also on record as hating Christians.
When did he write that? Proof please? (Score:1)
There was a Christian church right next door to the Unitarian Universalist Church, so I'm having trouble believing your comment is relevant, or even true.
The shooter's note specifically said he did it because he hated liberals and gays, and the affidavit he gave police said he did it because of the Church's liberal teachings.
Re: (Score:2)
There was a Christian church right next door to the Unitarian Universalist Church, so I'm having trouble believing your comment is relevant, or even true.
FWIW, to many people, Unitarians ARE Christians. I am not one of those people, but as the shooter might be, I don't think a Christian church next door means anything here.
The shooter's note specifically said he did it because he hated liberals and gays, and the affidavit he gave police said he did it because of the Church's liberal teachings.
I will testify that the Unitarians, especially the Universalist breed, are quite liberal, and if I had any notion to shoot people for liberal teachings of the Bible, I'd start with them, or the Episcopalians.
But I'd also be afraid someone else might similarly shoot me. ;-)
Re: (Score:1)
"He almost turned angry," she told the newspaper. "He seemed to get angry at that. He said that everything in the Bible contradicts itself if you read it."
Reading Comprehension for the win. Link [foxnews.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Around here (the United States of America) I don't see any "left wing" media, other than maybe Hustler and the Utne Reader.
CNN, CBS, MSNBC, NY Times, LA Times, Washington Post. For starters.
Around here, people take shotguns into Unitarian Universalist Churches and murder church-goers in front of their children, because they hate liberals.
Around here -- Seattle -- people take handguns into Jewish buildings because they hate, well, Jews. Does this mean that the media is anti-Jew? The odd crazy person is not evidence of anything.
Around here, people believe that "conservative" and "liberal" are mutually incompatible - everybody's jettisoned the idea of a common language and speaks in code phrases that reek of Orwellian double-speak.
Some people believe that, yes, on both sides. This fact does not justify denying the existence of liberal media.
Law isn't made by Congress any more, it's made by presidential "signing statements" that provide the approved meaning to the words written by the putative lawmakers.
I hope you know that's not true, that signing statements DO NOT have the force of law.
The constitution is something that can be retroactively overridden when big companies feel like it around here.
That never happened. I believe you are referring t
Re: (Score:1)
I haven't ever tried the LA Times, maybe they are different from the others you've mentioned (which all appear to me to be expressions of purest amoral capitalism, with no political views whatsoever that aren't for sale to the highest bidder). Thanks for the tip.
Around here -- Seattle -- people take handguns into Jewish buildings because they hate, well, Jews. Does this mean that the media is anti-Jew? The odd crazy person is not evidence of anything.
You are flirting with Mr. Godwin here. I can't really answer without invoking him. We've got people in government, in media (and on slashdot for that matter) promoting blanket hatred of anything that can be called "liberal" - the definition of wh
Re: (Score:2)
I haven't ever tried the LA Times, maybe they are different from the others you've mentioned (which all appear to me to be expressions of purest amoral capitalism, with no political views whatsoever that aren't for sale to the highest bidder).
Um, so you have never read the NY Times, then, or watched CBS News. Both are dependably left-wing. The NY Times has a few token conservatives. CBS doesn't.
You are flirting with Mr. Godwin here.
You directly implied that someone wanting to kill liberals is in some way connected to an anti-liberal bias in the press. I gave an example of someone shooting Jews, and asserted that by your logic, the press must be anti-Jew.
We've got people in government, in media (and on slashdot for that matter) promoting blanket hatred of anything that can be called "liberal" - the definition of which changes daily - and saying that "Liberals Hate America".
And we also have people in government and media promoting blanket hatred of anything that can be called "conservative" (indeed,
Re: (Score:1)
As written in OP above, Pudge:
...we still have no idea what Obama actually stands for..."
As written directly above:
I [Pudge] know what he stands for.
Wha?
Re: (Score:2)
Wha?
Context switch.
Medievalist had said (in another discussion [slashdot.org]) that Obama's first book tells what drives him. I therefore took him to mean here that "what he stands for" meant "what drives him," in the second quote.
The first quote, where I say "we still have no idea what Obama actually stands for," is referring to his stances on the issues and vision for the future, where he has been extremely vague in most respects.
Re: (Score:1)
everybody's jettisoned the idea of a common language...
It's much, much worse than even that -- what unfortunately has been jettisoned is a common view of reality. You and I are a sufficient example of this. We have a mainstream news media that's 90-some percent Liberal, the fawning over the de facto Democrat presidential nominee has gotten so ridiculous even the Left-wing comedy shows are making fun of it, and you insist you see none of it. Without at least a fairly common view of reality, our words are of