Obama's amazing sense of humor

[foxpaws]

However, far to many people do view them as a legitimate and even infallable source of news (even '04 cited them as a legitimate source of information). Weather or not Stewart or Colbert like that, it is a fact and to ignore it is irresponsible and wreckless...

Shag - are you saying that Stewart and Colbert are reckless? Heck, I watched Stewart take on FoxNews the other day because FoxNews was saying he wasn't 'fair and balanced'. He had to state over and over and over again - 'guess what - The Daily Show is a comedy show - on Comedy Central...' Fair and Balanced isn't part of the equation. Just like fair and balanced isn't a part of Limbaugh or Beck or Hannity. I don't expect them to be fair and balanced - because they are commentary.

If you watch Comedy Central for legitimate news - well I guess that would be that individual's problem... not Stewart's or Corbert's. Heck, during the entire broadcast of both shows the Comedy Central logo is on the screen at all times....

The fact is that the Daily Show brings down the debate in this country. It substitutes vitriol, condesention, demagogury and out-of-hand dismissal of opposing views for honest, civil discourse on the merits of the arguments. Basically, it fosters intellectual bankrupcy.

Bill Mahr does the same thing in his own way.

Then you would have to say that Limbaugh and Beck and Hannity do the same thing - they are condescending, venomous, flag waving, plebeian hacks.

 

[04SCTLS]

Young people who watch the daily show usually don't get much news information elsewhere.

If conservatives had a comparable charismatic funny news show young people actually wanted to watch they would get their views across much more easily while generating laughs.

 

[shagdrum]

Heck, I watched Stewart take on FoxNews the other day because FoxNews was saying he wasn't 'fair and balanced'. He had to state over and over and over again - 'guess what - The Daily Show is a comedy show - on Comedy Central...' Fair and Balanced isn't part of the equation.

Did you not grasp my point or are you simply ignoring it?

Then you would have to say that Limbaugh and Beck and Hannity do the same thing - they are condescending, venomous, flag waving, plebeian hacks.

Apples and oranges and you know it.

None of them have a pattern of quoting out of context, misrepresentation (except facetiously) or telling their opponents to "go f**k [them]selves".

In fact, Limbaugh, Beck, etc do fact check, make logical arguments and generally demonstrate intellectual integrity. None of that is found with Stewart or Colbert.

If you view them as "condescending, venomous, flag waving, plebeian hacks" then you clearly have not listened to them.**

But we all knew that from the start of this thread.

**the one exception being Hannity, who needs to loosen up and pull the stick out of his @$$ at times.

 

[shagdrum]

Getting one's point or view across simply is the best way to communicate with the masses.

That doesn't necessitate demagoguery or dishonesty; two things Stewart, etc all cater in.

If you have to use those to communicate your point, you are engaging in disinformation.

However, demagoguery is a means of debate on the left; even among it's intellectual elite.

Disagree with someone on the right and he is likely to think you obtuse, wrong, sentimental, foolish, a dope; disagree with someone on the left and he is more likely to think you selfish, coldhearted, a sellout, evil.
-Joseph Epstein​

 

[foxpaws]

Did you not grasp my point or are you simply ignoring it?

Obviously I just didn't grasp it - reckless - right - how does any show with a Comedy Central logo on it have to be responsible? They don't shag - They are comedy shows and obviously labeled as such.

You should be more aghast at Hannity and Beck - the logo that is a constant in the lower left hand corner of their shows is "FoxNews". Maybe they should put a disclaimer that says "but this is commentary"...

None of them have a pattern of quoting out of context, misrepresentation (except facetiously) or telling their opponents to "go f**k [them]selves".

Oh, just google Glenn Beck misquotes or any of the others... Heck, even Red State (a very right wing blog) catches Beck, O'Reilly et al all the time...

As far as "go f**k [them]selves" - they are on Comedy Central.... However, just check how often Limbaugh says 'screw you' - same concept shag... different audience...

In fact, Limbaugh, Beck, etc do fact check, make logical arguments and generally demonstrate intellectual integrity. None of that is found with Stewart or Colbert.

'intellectual integrity' is not required in comedy... however I will disagree that Limbaugh and the others fact check any more than Stewart, Colbert...

In 'fact' Beck admits he doesn't fact check...

Glenn Beck was on The View today, where after being called out on a story he used on his radio show involving meeting Whoopi Goldberg and Barbara Walters on a train, he admitted that he doesn’t check facts. Beck said that he is not a journalist. He is a commentator on life.

If you view them as "condescending, venomous, flag waving, plebeian hacks" then you clearly have not listened to them.**

Oh I have, and they are...

However Stewart and Colbert are quite open about their leanings... they aren't pretending to be anything other than extremely liberal comedians, who aren't required to fact check, have overwhelming 'intellectual integrity', or do anything other than get ratings because they make their audience laugh.

I don't believe that right wing commentators need to to anything other than what they do as well - they don't fact check, their intellectual integrity only requires them to appeal to their conservative audience, and at the end of the day the only thing they really look at is the Neilsens... because their paycheck is dependent on that number...

 

[shagdrum]

Obviously I just didn't grasp it

I doubt that...

how does any show with a Comedy Central logo...

A "red herring" is a deliberate attempt to divert a process of enquiry by changing the subject.​

Your focus on logos only serves to misdirect and confuse the issue.

Oh, just google Glenn Beck misquotes or any of the others

"Quoting out of context" is not the same as a "misquote". The red state link to reinforce your misdirection was a nice touch, though.

As far as "go f**k [them]selves" - they are on Comedy Central.... However, just check how often Limbaugh says 'screw you' - same concept shag... different audience...

...and different context.

In 'fact' Beck admits he doesn't fact check...

Your link is citing Media Matters as it's source. Nice attempt to dodge that fact.

It is worth noting that the facts in either link do NOT support your LIE that Beck does NOT fact check.

Oh I have, and they are...

You say that yet you have demonstrated countless times that you in fact do not.

The truth is that you "listened" to them just like you "read" The Road To Serfdom yet failed to recognized or even understand many of the basic arguments from the book. In other words you are lying. Again.

However Stewart and Colbert are quite open about their leanings...

You are implying that Beck, Limbaugh, etc are not open about their leanings.

A subtle lie, but still a lie.

they aren't pretending to be anything other than extremely liberal comedians, who aren't required to fact check, have overwhelming 'intellectual integrity'...

They have a responsibility to themselves to hold to certain standards of intellectual integrity.

However, as you have shown countless times, intellectual integrity means nothing to those on the left.

I don't believe that right wing commentators need to to anything other than what they do as well - they don't fact check,

More lies from the master.

The fact is that they do fact check and you know it. The ONLY source you can give to the contrary is Media Matters making a HUGE logical leap. Hardly a credible source or argument. You are citing a known liar to prove that someone else is lying...

While some things may get past on unscripted 3 hour shows they do not have a PATTERN of misrepresentation like the scripted Daily Show and Colbert Report who's arguments and points are rooted in misrepresentation and dishonesty.

their intellectual integrity only requires them to appeal to their conservative audience

Like I said, intellectual integrity is clearly a foreign concept to you as you are misapplying the term.

Maybe it would be more accurate to simply say integrity is a foreign concept to you...

 

[THEMOJOMAN]

Probably HIP HOP

I don't begrudge him having the help of writers prepare the material, I just think that it's interesting and worth noting that his advocates at the Daily Show were the ones to come to his aid.


But you can't point to any, but the poll ratings being low...


That's not self-deprecating, that's a shot at the "birthers."


Another birther joke, a shot at his critics.
I guess they couldn't think of any PG "tea bagging" jokes.



That's a joke about Eric Massa and Rahm Ehmanuel... not self deprecating.


I doubt it.
That was hardly as embarrassing as discussing their "weight problems."


It was a designed to be a humanizing joke, certainly.
I don't think it was a "Dad" moment because I don't think it was genuine.
I wouldn't doubt that the girls don't even like the Jonas Brothers.

Yeah they probably like JAY Z or SEAN JOHN and that crew.

 

[Calabrio]

See, foxpaws, this is why you're [edit:"mistaken"].

Oh, just google Glenn Beck misquotes or any of the others... Heck, even Red State (a very right wing blog) catches Beck, O'Reilly et al all the time...

Didn't we have a discussion here about quotes that are frequently attributed incorrectly? But making a common attributed mistake is vastly different than related current events and news items in a false way. And that's what you're trying to imply in another one of your dishonest efforts to validate your point and smear.

The Bernie Goldberg example is irrelevant.
And while the RedState guy does have legitimate examples of Beck using quotes as I just described, the example cited in that link is trivial, if not questionable.

In 'fact' Beck admits he doesn't fact check...

Glenn Beck was on The View today, where after being called out on a story he used on his radio show involving meeting Whoopi Goldberg and Barbara Walters on a train, he admitted that he doesn’t check facts. Beck said that he is not a journalist. He is a commentator on life.

But this is just outright misleading AND dishonest.
In regards to his radio and TV show, they research and confirm FACTS exhaustively. They are more responsible then the rest of the media and held to a much higher standard as well. This is a point that is constantly being reinforced and evident on his programing.

Other than some poorly attributed 200+ year old quotes, there's no example to support your implication, or assertion, that Beck plays fast and lose with the "facts."

About that VIEW story:
Rather than relying on a a comment made by a clearly uncomfortable "guest," who's actually sick that day, being ambushed on, even calling him a "Lying sack of dog mess" on a TV show, let's actually review the FACTS:

One journalist actually did. Scott Baker did that.
And it CONFIRMED what Beck said that day:

http://www.breitbart.tv/seven-minute-slam-the-inside-story-of-glenn-beck’s-ambush-on-‘the-view’/


Though, I'm sure the link you provided, politicususa.com, with "Real Liberal Politics" as it's slogan, was real interested in honestly discussing the issue. Not simply taking a comment out of context to smear their public enemy #1. It's so much easier to engage it that kind of political assassination rather than actually debate facts and ideas. Of course, you know that.

But DIRECTLY to your point.
She asks him if he's an "investigative reporter" and he answered no- he's a commentator, he commentates on life.
He doesn't say "I don't check to make sure what I'm saying is true." nor does he imply any such thing.

AND that's why this is another reason why you can't be trusted, foxpaws.
You have no regard for honest discussion.

 

[lincolnx2]

Yeah they probably like JAY Z or SEAN JOHN and that crew.

Who is "Sean John"?

 

[foxpaws]

Your focus on logos only serves to misdirect and confuse the issue.

Nope shag - it shows that Stewart/Colbert constantly put up front what they are... comedy... They aren't trying to misrepresent themselves as anything else.

"Quoting out of context" is not the same as a "misquote". The red state link to reinforce your misdirection was a nice touch, though.

So lets look at misquotes - since that seems to be your little 'bone' of contention...

Actual quote
"The third lesson and tip actually comes from two of my favorite political philosophers: Mao Tse-tung and Mother Theresa -- not often coupled with each other, but the two people I turn to most to basically deliver a simple point which is 'you're going to make choices; you're going to challenge; you're going to say why not; you're going to figure out how to do things that have never been done before."

Beck's shortened version -

"[T]wo of my favorite political philosophers, Mao Tse-Tung and Mother Teresa, not often coupled with each other, but the two people that I turn to most ..."

Big difference.

once again - just google 'out of context' with any right wing pundit - you will end up with a nice long list...

...and different context.

So....Rush quote...

Now you vegetarians -- ha! -- who think you're God's gift to purity, you now, it's on your shoulders: You're destroying the environment along with the rest of us carnivores. Screw you people! You understand where this is all headed? Who the hell are any of these people to tell any of the rest of us how to live?

Aren't they interchangeable... 'Screw you people' 'f**k yourself people' in this Rush quote? Context Shag?

Once again - just google - Screw (insert what ever pronoun you want here) is one of Rush's favorite things to say...

Your link is citing Media Matters as it's source. Nice attempt to dodge that fact.

Did you watch the footage - Beck very clearly states he doesn't check facts, because he is a commentator... not a journalist... or did you miss that little tidbit shag - it doesn't matter where it is posted... It is all over youtube as well...

It is worth noting that the facts in either link do NOT support your LIE that Beck does NOT fact check.

So we shouldn't go by the fact that he, himself, states he doesn't fact check.

But, more importantly - he knows he doesn't have to - he isn't a journalist - he is a commentator, so that shields him. I agreed with that earlier. I don't expect to hear the truth when I listen to Glenn Beck - because he is a commentator...

You are implying that Beck, Limbaugh, etc are not open about their leanings.

A subtle lie, but still a lie.

No-I was stating that Stewart and Colbert are open - because you seem to think that they aren't - that they are presenting themselves as some sort of 'real news source' or at least you are trying to hold them to the standards of 'journalists'. They aren't, and they are quite open about that fact.

I never stated that Beck, Limbaugh et al aren't open - you came to that little conclusion all on your own Shag...

They have a responsibility to themselves to hold to certain standards of intellectual integrity.

However, as you have shown countless times, intellectual integrity means nothing to those on the left.

Why - it is comedy - not journalism... Watch Colbert - his whole show is a loose parody of O'Reilly - what sort of standards does comedy have? Why would you hold up Stewart above South Park - Stewart certainly doesn't claim 'intellectual integrity' so why should you demand it of him?

The fact is that they do fact check and you know it. The ONLY source you can give to the contrary is Media Matters making a HUGE logical leap. Hardly a credible source or argument. You are citing a known liar to prove that someone else is lying...

While some things may get past on unscripted 3 hour shows they do not have a PATTERN of misrepresentation like the scripted Daily Show and Colbert Report who's arguments and points are rooted in misrepresentation and dishonesty.

For you, shag (and Cal too)

wrong
BECK: Let me get something straight here for those illegal aliens that might be watching the program. You have human rights. You do not have legal rights,

wrong
John Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, "has proposed forcing abortions and putting sterilants in the drinking water to control population."

there are lots more and more and a whole list of more... once again, just google

There probably is a reason he says he isn't a journalist - he knows he doesn't have to check facts... he can happily skip around the truth all he wants.

Once again - I don't care, it really doesn't matter to me - I no more turn into Glenn Beck for a factual account than I turn into The Daily Show for a factual account.

But, for some reason Shag you think that the Daily show should be held up to the same journalistic integrity of say NPR or FoxNews - I don't, it is comedy.

Whether you think it is funny or not - that isn't the question - the question is 'should it be held up to some fuzzy intellectual integrity standard' that you have set up.

Nope... absolutely not.

 

[foxpaws]

About that VIEW story:
Rather than relying on a a comment made by a clearly uncomfortable "guest," who's actually sick that day, being ambushed on, even calling him a "Lying sack of dog mess" on a TV show, let's actually review the FACTS:"

This is what was said...
Barbara Walters “You are an investigative reporter.”
Beck “No, I am not.”
Barbara “You are a reporter.”
Beck “No, I am not.”
Barbara “So, you check no facts at all?”
Beck “No, I am a commentator. I commentate on life.”
Barbara Walters then asked Beck numerous times throughout the rest of the segment if he checks facts - he never answers the question.

he was sick - that is an excuse Cal - are you actually going to go with that?

Though, I'm sure the link you provided, politicususa.com, with "Real Liberal Politics" as it's slogan, was real interested in honestly discussing the issue. Not simply taking a comment out of context to smear their public enemy #1. It's so much easier to engage it that kind of political assassination rather than actually debate facts and ideas. Of course, you know that.

So - look it up on youtube - it never changes Cal... He always avoids the question - 'Do you check facts?'

 

[Calabrio]

Beck's shortened version -

Because Beck provided the clips in their full context.

YouTube- Obama Cabinet Member Anita Dunn: Mao Tse Tung "Favorite Philosopher"; Truth is subjective

YouTube- Anita Dunn Admires Mao Tse-tung; "He is my Favorite Philosopher": Obama's latest Communist

just google 'out of context' with any right wing pundit - you will end up with a nice long list...

Written up and spun by radical leftist like the Media Matters, or yourself.

Did you watch the footage - Beck very clearly states he doesn't check facts, because he is a commentator... not a journalist... or did you miss that little tidbit shag - it doesn't matter where it is posted... It is all over youtube as well...

Did you watch the footage.
She asks him if he's an INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALIST.
And it's to that question that he's saying NO.

He doesn't say, "I don't check me facts" at any point.

And, as I pointed out in the other post, not only was he ambushed on that show, but he was also sick for a few days but honored the commitment of the appearance and was on cold/flu medication.

So we shouldn't go by the fact that he, himself, states he doesn't fact check.

Again, that's not true.
His show relentlessly and exhaustively fact checks EVERY bit of information that is broadcast on his show. His standards are higher than those of the MSM. If they weren't, you'd have some legit examples to provide.

For you, shag (and Cal too)

It's interesting, earlier you tried to take issue with context, yet you continue to repeat such context-less attacks right now.

wrong
BECK: Let me get something straight here for those illegal aliens that might be watching the program. You have human rights. You do not have legal rights,

Again, care to provide the context.
What was the REST of the sentence from that old "clip" from CNN Headline News?
And is that an example of someone present false information, or someone using language that may have been legally imprecise?

EDIT: I found the context of his statement.
It wasn't a college lecture of constitutional rights, it was a Feb. 7, 2007 broadcast on Headline News.

Here's what he said, "Two stories have surfaced to back this point up that common sense is dead. The first one is the Justice Department is formulating new rules to allow the government to collect DNA samples from hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants detained by the law enforcement.

Well, as you can imagine, everybody is coming out of the woodwork. Oh, how dare do that to illegal aliens? Yes, right. Let me get something straight here for those illegal aliens that might be watching the program. You have human rights. You do not have legal rights. I`ll treat you like a human being and I`ll treat you with dignity. But if you break into my country, you know what? I`m going to take your DNA, and I`m going to put you on a plane and I`m going to send you the hell back to your freaking country. Some reports suggest that in Los Angeles 95 percent of all outstanding homicide warrants are for illegal aliens. Gee, if that`s the case, do you think having their DNA might help catch some killers?

Do you remember that Mexican immigrant who was known as the Railroad Killer? Starting in 1997, he committed at least 15 murders and countless rapes in the United States. Now, over the years of his brutal rampage, we`ve deported the Railroad Killer 17 times. That means we had him in custody 17 times. We had 17 opportunities to lock him up for murder.

If we had his DNA, do you think after the first crime we could have tested that, matched it, maybe the rest of the murders and the rapes would have never been committed?

wrong
John Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, "has proposed forcing abortions and putting sterilants in the drinking water to control population."

Again, you're doing the same thing you did with the Anita Dunne quote.
He's been extremely precise and complete when addressing the John Holdren writings.
The reality is that Holdren DOES bring up the subject in the book he co-authored, and the Politicfact "pants on fire" confirms that.
And Holdren and Ehrlich don't dismiss the drinking water or abortions as being wrong, just that they are technologically infeasible or currently unpalatable to the general public.

So, we can play word games. You think using the word "proposed" is a the lie?
He didn't advocate for their policy, but he did present the ideas in his books.

And regarding the context-less quotes, if during the course of a conversation he references something that is familiar to the audience in a short hand way, that's vastly different than what you and your fellow travelers on the left are implying online here.

If these are the examples you have for a guy who lies and doesn't check facts, then you must realize just how weak your argument is.

There probably is a reason he says he isn't a journalist - he knows he doesn't have to check facts... he can happily skip around the truth all he wants.

Yet, you haven't provided any examples of him "skipping around the truth" yet.

Despite the relentless efforts of the ugly left to destroy him. Despite the fact that he speaks for 15 hours a week on the radio and 5 hours a week on TV.
Attack his credibility and accuracy without actually providing any examples of him "lying" or reporting things that are misleading or untrue.

But his "fact checking" has been more accurate than the "journalists' at the NY Times.

 

[fossten]

Keith Olbermann has called Rush Limbaugh a comedian numerous times.

So Ricky's point is moot.

 

[shagdrum]

AND that's why this is another reason why you can't be trusted, foxpaws.
You have no regard for honest discussion.

That fact cannot be stated often enough.

 

[shagdrum]

Nope shag - it shows that Stewart/Colbert constantly put up front what they are... comedy... They aren't trying to misrepresent themselves as anything else.

I never said they were misrepresenting themselves. What you are doing is injecting a false premise by way of a red herring.

You have no integrity.

once again - just google 'out of context' with any right wing pundit - you will end up with a nice long list...

So, because we have enough leftists like yourself who lie and spread disinformation, that disinformation must be true?

So....Rush quote...

Care to provide the full context of that quote?

Aren't they interchangeable...

No really. Limbaugh's comment is an aside to his point. Stewart's comment is his point. That is a very important distinction.

Did you watch the footage - Beck very clearly states he doesn't check facts, because he is a commentator... not a journalist... or did you miss that little tidbit shag - it doesn't matter where it is posted... It is all over youtube as well...

Yes, I did watch the footage and you are LYING about it. In no uncertain terms you are LYING.

More likely, YOU didn't watch the footage and are simply going with what was said in the little "synopsis" and commentary beneath the video.

So we shouldn't go by the fact that he, himself, states he doesn't fact check.

HE NEVER STATED THAT!

More accurately, we shouldn't go by your LIES.

No-I was stating that Stewart and Colbert are open - because you seem to think that they aren't

It is the height of rudeness to LIE about what someone is saying.

I never stated that Beck, Limbaugh et al aren't open - you came to that little conclusion all on your own Shag...

No you never stated it. You DID imply it and you know it.

Why - it is comedy - not journalism... Watch Colbert - his whole show is a loose parody of O'Reilly - what sort of standards does comedy have? Why would you hold up Stewart above South Park - Stewart certainly doesn't claim 'intellectual integrity' so why should you demand it of him?

If Stewart and Colbert have no integrity, then they are bottom feeders who should not be given a public forum and should be run off the air.

You really don't understand the concept of integrity at all do you...

But, for some reason Shag you think that the Daily show should be held up to the same journalistic integrity of say NPR or FoxNews - I don't, it is comedy.

Again, it is rude to LIE about what someone says...

Whether you think it is funny or not - that isn't the question - the question is 'should it be held up to some fuzzy intellectual integrity standard' that you have set up.

I simply expect anyone to hold themselves to certain standards of decency, honesty and integrityin all aspects. Politics is no exception.

I know things like character, honesty and integrity are irrelevant to someone like you, but to most people those qualities matter and those who don't hold them are repulsive to the rest of us.

 

[fossten]

Michael Moore has made a good living lying and shading the truth about things people say.

Nicky's just trying to be more like Mike.

 

[shagdrum]

Beck “No, I am a commentator. I commentate on life.”

"No, I am a commentator." does NOT mean "no, I don't check facts."

your attempt to rationalize your lie by redefining what a commentator is to mean "doesn't check facts" is pretty transparent.

So - look it up on youtube - it never changes Cal... He always avoids the question - 'Do you check facts?'

Because they were intentionally baiting him and trying to set him up. Wisely refusing to take the bait does not mean that "he admitted he doesn't check the facts".

This repulsive dishonesty and duplicity is why I have absolutely nothing to do with you outside of this forum. I prefer to associate with people of character; people I can trust.

 

[04SCTLS]

Though not my opinion,
I know what you guys are thinking

Be afraid, be very afraid!

 

[fossten]

"No, I am a commentator." does NOT mean "no, I don't check facts."

your attempt to rationalize your lie by redefining what a commentator is to mean "doesn't check facts" is pretty transparent.



Because they were intentionally baiting him and trying to set him up. Wisely refusing to take the bait does not mean that "he admitted he doesn't check the facts".

This repulsive dishonesty and duplicity is why I have absolutely nothing to do with you outside of this forum. I prefer to associate with people of character; people I can trust.

Exactly right. It's like the question "When did you stop beating your wife?"

 

[04SCTLS]

You guys should be careful she doesn't turn you into "newts" LOL!

 

[MonsterMark]

• “It's been quite a year since I've spoken here last — lots of ups, lots of downs — except for my approval ratings, which have just gone down. ..But that's politics. It doesn’t bother me. Beside I happen to know that my approval ratings are still very high in the country of my birth.

That's not self-deprecating, that's a shot at the "birthers."

That's bullsh!t. He's admitting it and rubbing everybody's face in it.
That's not taking a shot at the birthers. That is an arrogant narcissist that is admitting he's an f'n fraud and laughing at everyone at the same time.

My God you people are so blind.

He even told everyone that his nationality was ruled by Kenya at birth and nobody in this Country has the balls to stand up to him.

 

[fossten]

MM actually makes a very good point. It fits with his narcissism and hubris. I'm inclined to believe him.

 

[Calabrio]

No, Obama was not born in Kenya.

The President's "story" is muddled, there's conflicting information, and there are numerous strategic and legal blocks obstructing any kind of investigation, but there's no reason to conclude that he was born in a foreign country.

The likelihood that a pregnant woman would fly to Kenya to deliver a child in 1961 is absurd. Travelling to Africa today is bad, it'd have been awful in 1961. But why would she be going there? To meet Senior's other wife and kid?

And isn't B.O.Sr. actually not the real father, but a black guy who they arranged to take credit and give the kid some African identity and legitimacy? Or was it that Stanley Ann actually isn't the mother? Or that his granfather is actually the father? Or that the date of the birth certificate is wrong?

But what about the announcements in the newspaper?

As I said, the "story" is very suspicious and it's natural for people to try to make sense of it, but being born in Kenya is the least reasonable of the theories. That's why they love to belittle it. That's why he mocks and ridicules those who narrowly focus on it- and tries to associate it with those who disagree with him.

One day he's born in Kenya. The next day his wife is talking about how "single" and alone his mother was when he was born. Then the next day Michelle is talking about "his country" being Kenya.

But why would anyone fly there in 1961!?

It wasn't an admission.
It's was just more provocation and mockery.

 

[foxpaws]

You guys should be careful she doesn't turn you into "newts" LOL!

'04 - that would be rather cruel to newts everywhere - don't you think?

Cal – I saw the last of the episode where he attacks Anita Dunne – where he ‘shorthands’ (your term) her quote. I did not see the beginning of that broadcast.

However whether he ‘longhanded’ or ‘shorthanded’ her quote he still misrepresents it. He acts as though by saying that he is one of her favorite philosophers because of how he can basically deliver a simple point (obviously, they don’t call it the “Little Red Book” for nothing), Anita is a communist. There is no other quote or evidence to back this up - nothing that states that she agrees with his methods as Beck drones on about in his broadcast, nothing that indicates she is a communist sympathizer. The only thing he builds his whole case on is the fact that Mao is a favorite philosopher of Anita's because he is good at 'delivering a simple point'.

Beck obviously adores Jefferson, and he appears to be one of his favorite people to quote, however he certainly doesn’t agree with Jefferson’s ‘methods’ of owning well over 100 slaves and keeping a slave as a mistress. I am sure that Anita doesn’t agree with Mao’s record on human rights or how he strong armed an entire nation, along with killing hundreds of thousands of people. All she said that Mao was one of her favorite philosophers because of his brevity…

He misrepresents her in his broadcast. He creates a false illusion that she is a communist sympathizer. How can you do that on one quote where she states that Mao is a favorite philosopher of hers because he can get to the point?

He takes the quote and bends it to fit his agenda. This is lying. He does this a lot on his show – he twists and turns and runs circles around things to create an illusion. Smoke and mirrors.

The same as the Holdren quote – yes Holdren stated many scenarios in his book – but he didn’t ‘propose’ them as a viable solution as Beck stated, he just listed different possibilities. He never advocated involuntary sterilization as Beck implies – he merely stated that it could be feasible in the future, not that he agreed with it at all. Beck misrepresents Holdren as ‘proposing’ involuntarily sterilization when all Holdren did was list a large variety of possible, but often infeasible or unpalatable methods.

It is like saying one way of stopping population growth is with a large scale nuclear war. You aren’t advocating nuclear war you are just stating an obvious fact. It would stop population growth.

As far as The View - yep, they ambushed him, but Baba Wawa knew right away she had something when he answered 'no, I am a commentator' to the fact checking question. Her journalism background came to the fore and she asked him over and over again if he fact checked. She knew that was a 'big deal' and he never answered her.

 

[fossten]

Beck obviously adores Jefferson, and he appears to be one of his favorite people to quote, however he certainly doesn’t agree with Jefferson’s ‘methods’ of owning well over 100 slaves and keeping a slave as a mistress. I am sure that Anita doesn’t agree with Mao’s record on human rights or how he strong armed an entire nation, along with killing hundreds of thousands of people. All she said that Mao was one of her favorite philosophers because of his brevity…

Your equivocation is astounding. Mao murdering millions NOT HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS is the same as Jefferson keeping, feeding, and caring for some slaves?

:bowrofl:

Next you'll be saying that Ted Bundy was "an odd sort."