Forums | MacLife

robco · 2009-10-23 3:06 pm

sturner wrote:
Depends on where that they learn it. In the southern part of Germany, they tend to emulate an American accent, in northern Germany they tend to emulate an English accent. My particular experience with it.

Just so long as they don't emulate a Canadian accent...

DevoDoc · 2009-10-23 3:10 pm

robco wrote:
sturner wrote:
Depends on where that they learn it. In the southern part of Germany, they tend to emulate an American accent, in northern Germany they tend to emulate an English accent. My particular experience with it.
Just so long as they don't emulate a Canadian accent...

Eh?

jerwin · 2009-10-23 3:16 pm

resedit wrote:
Chickenhawk wrote:
resedit wrote:
They are a member of the press core.
I let this go the first couple times, but its driving me nuts.

Its Press corps not Press core.
I apologize, I'm hard of hearing.
Thank you for pointing it out.

Your ears are fine. You should get your eyes checked.

ShnickyShnack · 2009-10-23 3:40 pm

I'd be surprised if very many people beyond the true-believer club will feel much outrage about this. Several decades of smurf Republicanism makes it really hard for them to play the outraged victim. Which is funny because in lieu of a positive record, positive policy ideas, or indeed anything positive at all, all they have left is outraged victimhood.

JakeTheTall · 2009-10-23 3:47 pm

ShnickyShnack wrote:
I'd be surprised if very many people beyond the true-believer club will feel much outrage about this. Several decades of smurf Republicanism makes it really hard for them to play the outraged victim. Which is funny because in lieu of a positive record, positive policy ideas, or indeed anything positive at all, all they have left is outraged victimhood.

See also the unfavorable numbers among independents of right-wing hosts.

resedit · 2009-10-23 3:59 pm

jerwin wrote:
resedit wrote:
Chickenhawk wrote:

I let this go the first couple times, but its driving me nuts.

Its Press corps not Press core.
I apologize, I'm hard of hearing.
Thank you for pointing it out.
Your ears are fine. You should get your eyes checked.

You don't have any grounds to diagnose my hearing.

I assume you know that the way many people read, even when things are grossly misspelled if they resemble a word that makes sense in the context that's often how the brain interprets it.

So if you hear a word incorrectly and consistently those people don't often notice it when reading if similar.

But enough with the nit picking.
The proper word is now known.

resedit · 2009-10-23 4:01 pm

ShnickyShnack wrote:
I'd be surprised if very many people beyond the true-believer club will feel much outrage about this.

Did you see what the NYTimes had to say about it?

The fact that this attempt by the white house to circumvent freedom of the press doesn't upset y'all is very telling.

Tallgeese · 2009-10-23 4:03 pm

resedit wrote:
ShnickyShnack wrote:
I'd be surprised if very many people beyond the true-believer club will feel much outrage about this.
Did you see what the NYTimes had to say about it?

The fact that this attempt by the white house to circumvent freedom of the press doesn't upset y'all is very telling.

So about Bush's refusal to talk to the New York Times...

resedit · 2009-10-23 4:08 pm

What about it?
Did the white house exclude them from access?

resedit · 2009-10-23 4:09 pm

btw, have a link for that? Quick google isn't showing anything.

Tallgeese · 2009-10-23 4:20 pm

resedit wrote:
btw, have a link for that? Quick google isn't showing anything.

It's in this thread. Your subconscious blinders are rather effective, I see.

JakeTheTall · 2009-10-23 4:22 pm

Lack of access has absolutely nothing to do with freedom of the press.

Sigh, I sat out as long as I could, but this is just absurd.

resedit · 2009-10-23 4:34 pm

JakeTheTall wrote:
Lack of access has absolutely nothing to do with freedom of the press.

Sigh, I sat out as long as I could, but this is just absurd.

Actually as was explained by a lawyer on TV earlier, case law says it does.
Fox News has the necessary credentials and is part of the necessary corps, the government can not selectively deny them access because they do not like them, that is restricting freedom of the press.

Private corporations and individuals can, government may not, the executive branch can not arbitrarily decide who is news and who is not. Fox is credentialed and a member of the pool in good standing.

resedit · 2009-10-23 4:37 pm

btw - the Obama administration's criticism of Fox is not that different than the Nixon Administrations criticism of Woodward and Bernstein.

We all know how that turned out, and that's exactly why the white house can not be allowed to selectively decide to deny access to media they don't like.

Pariah · 2009-10-23 4:39 pm

resedit wrote:
JakeTheTall wrote:
Lack of access has absolutely nothing to do with freedom of the press.

Sigh, I sat out as long as I could, but this is just absurd.
Actually as was explained by a lawyer on TV earlier, case law says it does.
Fox News has the necessary credentials and is part of the necessary corps, the government can not selectively deny them access because they do not like them, that is restricting freedom of the press.

Private corporations and individuals can, government may not, the executive branch can not arbitrarily decide who is news and who is not. Fox is credentialed and a member of the pool in good standing.

I should think there would be a way to revoke Fox's White House press credentials. Seeing as how they are not a News network in any way.
Would Better Homes and Gardens qualify for press creds? If not neither should Fox.

bedstuy · 2009-10-23 4:40 pm

OBAMA = NIXON 2.O! DRESSED AS HITLER EVEN! AND MAO!

Pariah · 2009-10-23 4:40 pm

resedit wrote:
btw - the Obama administration's criticism of Fox is not that different than the Nixon Administrations criticism of Woodward and Bernstein.

We all know how that turned out, and that's exactly why the white house can not be allowed to selectively decide to deny access to media they don't like.

This example just proves your fuzzy understanding of history.

Tallgeese · 2009-10-23 4:50 pm

The New York Times, for instance, has had a standing request to interview President Bush since well before I came on this beat in May 2006. So far, no interview -- and the reason why is hardly a secret.

White House officials are quite open about the fact that we have not gotten an interview because they don't like our coverage. I get e-mails to that effect from them all the time.

Pariah · 2009-10-23 4:52 pm

Maybe the Obama admin ought to start paying "journalists" like Bush did.

Oh and to be pedantic I have to point out that "Constitutional Crisis nearly averted" indicates that a crisis was almost averted but did in fact happen.

bedstuy · 2009-10-23 4:55 pm

And let's recall that Cheney/Bush were sabotaging the New York Times even before they were inaugurated:

http://archive.salon.com/politics/featu … cuss_word/

"major league smurf" and "big time" -- such upstanding and classy speech from true Christian evangelical believers.

link

If this seems familiar, consider the case of the Bush White House versus the New York Times. George W. Bush’s tendentious relationship with the Old Gray Lady started on the campaign trail when Bush was caught on a live microphone declaring that Times reporter Adam Clymer was a “major league smurf.” What followed was 8 years in which the New York Times became a something of a bete noire to Bush. Our nation’s 43rd president failed to sit for an interview with the paper. And the Times then grew into a crucial punchline in the telling of conservative stories about American political life. Rush Limbaugh quotes the New York Times everyday in his broadcasts, but still manages to constantly call out America’s paper of record as a propaganda organ that’s no better than the Soviet Union’s Pravda.

The thing about this strategy is that it worked! Constantly criticizing the New York Times became an important rallying tool for a conservative segment of the electorate that continues to this day. “Where’d you read that, in the LIBERAL New York Times?” you may find yourself asked when sparring verbally with some self-identified conservatives.

Last edited by bedstuy (2009-10-23 5:00 pm)

Pariah · 2009-10-23 5:13 pm

While I completely disagree with any of the bullsmurf equivalency arguments over this situation I think Obama should take a more subtle track with Fox.
It's like this, kicking a piece of smurf may get it out of your way but you always end up with some smurf on your shoes. Or in this case, who of us would want to try to scrape Beck off the bottom of our shoes?
Imagine the smell and the whining.

Graphic Autist · 2009-10-23 5:15 pm

I don't see how any of this has anything to do with violating the Constitution.

Not allowing a news channel into a press conference hardly falls under violation of Constitutional rights.

D'Eyncourt · 2009-10-23 5:19 pm

ShnickyShnack wrote:
I'd be surprised if very many people beyond the true-believer club will feel much outrage about this. Several decades of Republicanism makes it really hard for them to play the outraged victim. Which is funny because in lieu of a positive record, positive policy ideas, or indeed anything positive at all, all they have left is outraged victimhood.

Fixed that fer ya--by leaving out a redundant term.

StaticAge · 2009-10-23 6:45 pm

Isn't it hypocritical to call out Obama's administration for a near-Constitutional-crisis, when Res himself is violating the Constitution by failing to address the points brought up by SS?

StaticAge · 2009-10-23 6:48 pm

Pariah wrote:
Maybe the Obama admin ought to start paying "journalists" like Bush did.

Oh and to be pedantic I have to point out that "Constitutional Crisis nearly averted" indicates that a crisis was almost averted but did in fact happen.

Pointing out someone's grammar like that is un-Constitutional. I thought liberals were supposed to be in favor of free speech.

Last edited by StaticAge (2009-10-23 6:49 pm)

Forums | MacLife

#51 2009-10-23 3:06 pm

Re: Constitutional Crisis nearly averted

sturner wrote:

#52 2009-10-23 3:10 pm

Re: Constitutional Crisis nearly averted

robco wrote:

sturner wrote:

#53 2009-10-23 3:16 pm

Re: Constitutional Crisis nearly averted

resedit wrote:

Chickenhawk wrote:

resedit wrote:

#54 2009-10-23 3:40 pm

Re: Constitutional Crisis nearly averted

#55 2009-10-23 3:47 pm

Re: Constitutional Crisis nearly averted

ShnickyShnack wrote:

#56 2009-10-23 3:59 pm

Re: Constitutional Crisis nearly averted

jerwin wrote:

resedit wrote:

Chickenhawk wrote:

#57 2009-10-23 4:01 pm

Re: Constitutional Crisis nearly averted

ShnickyShnack wrote:

#58 2009-10-23 4:03 pm

Re: Constitutional Crisis nearly averted

resedit wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

#59 2009-10-23 4:08 pm

Re: Constitutional Crisis nearly averted

#60 2009-10-23 4:09 pm

Re: Constitutional Crisis nearly averted

#61 2009-10-23 4:20 pm

Re: Constitutional Crisis nearly averted

resedit wrote:

#62 2009-10-23 4:22 pm

Re: Constitutional Crisis nearly averted

#63 2009-10-23 4:34 pm

Re: Constitutional Crisis nearly averted

JakeTheTall wrote:

#64 2009-10-23 4:37 pm

Re: Constitutional Crisis nearly averted

#65 2009-10-23 4:39 pm

Re: Constitutional Crisis nearly averted

resedit wrote:

JakeTheTall wrote:

#66 2009-10-23 4:40 pm

Re: Constitutional Crisis nearly averted

#67 2009-10-23 4:40 pm

Re: Constitutional Crisis nearly averted

resedit wrote:

#68 2009-10-23 4:50 pm

Re: Constitutional Crisis nearly averted

#69 2009-10-23 4:52 pm

Re: Constitutional Crisis nearly averted

#70 2009-10-23 4:55 pm

Re: Constitutional Crisis nearly averted

#71 2009-10-23 5:13 pm

Re: Constitutional Crisis nearly averted

#72 2009-10-23 5:15 pm

Re: Constitutional Crisis nearly averted

#73 2009-10-23 5:19 pm

Re: Constitutional Crisis nearly averted

ShnickyShnack wrote:

#74 2009-10-23 6:45 pm

Re: Constitutional Crisis nearly averted

#75 2009-10-23 6:48 pm

Re: Constitutional Crisis nearly averted

Pariah wrote:

Board footer