For Conservatives

Flash said:
So, we are claiming government spins the news to make themselves look better politically? Who knew?
Click to expand...

That's the thing, though. In the past, that would have just been an accepted reality, not the basis for claiming scandal. Even if you believed (absent any evidence) that the Obama administration knowingly misled people about the roll of the anti-Muslim video in the attack, because they thought the story would play better that way, and then had to withdraw that spin when more facts came out, it's not something that would have been treated as scandalous in any other era. It would just be seen as garden-variety fibbing about an ancillary matter. Maybe if it was blatant enough, they'd have gotten an earful about it for a week or two, similar to when Trump was caught lying about the historical magnitude of his electoral college win (or his class rank, or his ratings, or his inauguration crowd size, and so on). But soon it would have been forgotten, because the dishonest spin just didn't matter. But the Obama years were different. The Republicans treated every actual or imagined misstep as a major scandal, worthy of forcing top members of the administration to testify over and over again, under oath.

I get why they did that. It let them probe constantly for real weaknesses. It was the right-wing feigned freak out about post-Benghazi communications that led them to demand Clinton's emails, which gave them an avenue for a new feigned freak-out once the media got bored with the phony Benghazi scandal. By always keeping things cranked to 11, they can control the narrative. But it's just hard to imagine Democrats even trying the same thing. For example, could you imagine the Democrats forcing top Trump officials to testify under oath, and forcing them to hand over all their emails for review, in order to get to the bottom of the "scandal" of Trump lying to exaggerate his electoral college win size? Of course not. Democrats have a sense of proportion. They ridiculed him for having spun his way into an obvious lie, then moved on to stuff that actually matters. It would be nice if the Republican Party developed that ability to observe the boundaries of good sense, in the interest of the nation.
 
Evmetro said:
When I described what righties "perceived", I was explaining from a neutral position to respond to your objective sounding opening essay. It does not sound like you are interested in being objective anymore. Since characterassasin is assassinating your thread, I'm out.
Click to expand...

What I'm saying is that I get how right-wing media built this into a scandal in the minds of right-wingers. They pushed the idea that the Obama administration deliberately misreported some contextual facts about the attack in order to make it play better for them with the public. My point is that even if we set aside the fact that claim was based on mere speculation (nobody ever established deliberate dishonesty on the part of the Obama team with regard to the attack), and even if we were to assume the Obama administration really did spin things to the point of dishonesty that way, it still doesn't justify the right-wing reaction. Remember, they used that inconsequential bit of allegedly dishonest spin as the basis for a four-year-long scandal and endless hearings.

As you presumably are well aware, the Trump administration engages in dishonest spin all the time. For example, Trump claimed ISIS was defeated in Syria, as part of justifying his decision to withdraw, which obviously isn't true. Based on the Benghazi precedent, the Democrats could use that lie as the basis of getting hold of the emails of top members of his administration and going through them all to show what evidence the Trump team actually had about ISIS in Syria when Trump was making that claim. But that kind of disingenuous government-by-pseudo-scandal approach just isn't a bipartisan thing in this country. The Democrats are still observing more or less the ordinary standards of government, while the Republicans have embraced an ethos that says "by any means necessary."
 
Evmetro said:
We perceived a gross intentional deception that was politically motivated.
Click to expand...

And the perception you had was 100% wrong and fueled entirely by your inherent bias against Obama.

You all said ISIS was defeated, you went to the mat to defend that for Trump.

Now you have to eat shit for it.
 
Oneuli said:
What I'm saying is that I get how right-wing media built this into a scandal in the minds of right-wingers. They pushed the idea that the Obama administration deliberately misreported some contextual facts about the attack in order to make it play better for them with the public. My point is that even if we set aside the fact that claim was based on mere speculation (nobody ever established deliberate dishonesty on the part of the Obama team with regard to the attack), and even if we were to assume the Obama administration really did spin things to the point of dishonesty that way, it still doesn't justify the right-wing reaction. Remember, they used that inconsequential bit of allegedly dishonest spin as the basis for a four-year-long scandal and endless hearings.

As you presumably are well aware, the Trump administration engages in dishonest spin all the time. For example, Trump claimed ISIS was defeated in Syria, as part of justifying his decision to withdraw, which obviously isn't true. Based on the Benghazi precedent, the Democrats could use that lie as the basis of getting hold of the emails of top members of his administration and going through them all to show what evidence the Trump team actually had about ISIS in Syria when Trump was making that claim. But that kind of disingenuous government-by-pseudo-scandal approach just isn't a bipartisan thing in this country. The Democrats are still observing more or less the ordinary standards of government, while the Republicans have embraced an ethos that says "by any means necessary."
Click to expand...

I appreciate that you are still putting some effort into being objective and neutral. The concept and craftsmanship of your opening essay has merit, but there is still too much conflict for the comparison to work. Both sides of the aisle remain too subjective to do this. Each side sees the other's president and administration as more dishonest than their own. If this thread was on the APP forum, it would have a better chance at genuine objective consideration, but probably would make it anyway. I despise you for being on the other side of the aisle, but I do enjoy your essays. You are one of the few lefties here who brings anything worthwhile to the table for debate. Thanks.
 
Oneuli said:
What I'm saying is that I get how right-wing media built this into a scandal in the minds of right-wingers. They pushed the idea that the Obama administration deliberately misreported some contextual facts about the attack in order to make it play better for them with the public. My point is that even if we set aside the fact that claim was based on mere speculation (nobody ever established deliberate dishonesty on the part of the Obama team with regard to the attack), and even if we were to assume the Obama administration really did spin things to the point of dishonesty that way, it still doesn't justify the right-wing reaction. Remember, they used that inconsequential bit of allegedly dishonest spin as the basis for a four-year-long scandal and endless hearings.

As you presumably are well aware, the Trump administration engages in dishonest spin all the time. For example, Trump claimed ISIS was defeated in Syria, as part of justifying his decision to withdraw, which obviously isn't true. Based on the Benghazi precedent, the Democrats could use that lie as the basis of getting hold of the emails of top members of his administration and going through them all to show what evidence the Trump team actually had about ISIS in Syria when Trump was making that claim. But that kind of disingenuous government-by-pseudo-scandal approach just isn't a bipartisan thing in this country. The Democrats are still observing more or less the ordinary standards of government, while the Republicans have embraced an ethos that says "by any means necessary."
Click to expand...

This false equivalency thing that says, "Democrats do to Republican what Republicans do to Democrats" is probably at the heart of why so many American conservatives think the media is terribly biased to the left.

The comments you have made about how the Republicans would be handling matters if the positions were reversed right now, Oneuli, hit the nail squarely on its head.

There is no doubt there is spinning (and plenty of it) from BOTH sides of the aisle (I am not denying that)...but ANYONE who think the Democrats or liberals do the kinds of things regularly done by the Republicans or American conservatives...is simply not looking at things objectively.

Yes! OBJECTIVITY on this matter demands that there is nowhere near equivalency...and that any equivalency perceived is false equivalency.

That leads to: What American conservatives perceive as FAKE NEWS or left-leaning bias in the MSM...is, for the most part, merely the MSM reporting the truth.
 
Frank Apisa said:
This false equivalency thing that says, "Democrats do to Republican what Republicans do to Democrats" is probably at the heart of why so many American conservatives think the media is terribly biased to the left.

The comments you have made about how the Republicans would be handling matters if the positions were reversed right now, Oneuli, hit the nail squarely on its head.

There is no doubt there is spinning (and plenty of it) from BOTH sides of the aisle (I am not denying that)...but ANYONE who think the Democrats or liberals do the kinds of things regularly done by the Republicans or American conservatives...is simply not looking at things objectively.

Yes! OBJECTIVITY on this matter demands that there is nowhere near equivalency...and that any equivalency perceived is false equivalency.

That leads to: What American conservatives perceive as FAKE NEWS or left-leaning bias in the MSM...is, for the most part, merely the MSM reporting the truth.
Click to expand...

You are subjectively objective.

Ya know... All righties were once lefties. We were born as little lefties who screamed and cried for that tit or bottle, and it took years for us to become civilized. It is important to consider that since righties were once lefties, we know what it is like to be a lefty from first hand memories and knowledge. This is important, because it means that righties can actually evaluate things from both a lefty perspective, AND a righty perspective. Lefties, on the other hand, have never been righties, which means that they can only process things with lefty thoughts. Lefties cannot think like righties, but righties CAN think like lefties.

Frankly frank, you simply cannot be objective as a lefty. The best you can do is to speculate what righties think, but you can only speculate with exclusively lefty thoughts. You see and process the world though a lefty lens, so you cannot see what the rest of us see without the lefty lens that you are limited to. You can only be subjectively objective. Thanks for trying though.
 
Evmetro said:
You are subjectively objective.

Ya know... All righties were once lefties. We were born as little lefties who screamed and cried for that tit or bottle, and it took years for us to become civilized. It is important to consider that since righties were once lefties, we know what it is like to be a lefty from first hand memories and knowledge. This is important, because it means that righties can actually evaluate things from both a lefty perspective, AND a righty perspective. Lefties, on the other hand, have never been righties, which means that they can only process things with lefty thoughts. Lefties cannot think like righties, but righties CAN think like lefties.

Frankly frank, you simply cannot be objective as a lefty. The best you can do is to speculate what righties think, but you can only speculate with exclusively lefty thoughts. You see and process the world though a lefty lens, so you cannot see what the rest of us see without the lefty lens that you are limited to. You can only be subjectively objective. Thanks for trying though.
Click to expand...

You are full of shit, Evmetro.

There was a time in my life where I was as "righty" as one could be. There was a time when I distinctly remember giving a spirited defense of Senator Joseph Mc Carthy to a group of people who were castigating him...and his tactics. (Yeah, I cringe in regret and embarrassment at that recollection.)

I was too young to vote for Dwight Eisenhower, but had I been old enough, I undoubtedly would have voted for him.

I voted for Ronald Reagan the first time he ran.

Any thoughts you have that assholes American conservatives like you are able to view issues from both sides, but that people who advocate for a progressive agenda cannot...is so ludicrous I am amazed even a moron like you is not laughing at them. The fact that you think YOU are "objective" in what you post here...is even more laughable.

Lastly, you are full of shit, Evmetro.
 
Oneuli said:
ISIS took credit for the recent attack at a Syrian restaurant that killed four Americans -- two service members, and two civilians. I'd like to invite you to think through what your reaction would be if we found there was some confusion in the administration's initial communications response to the attack -- for example, if, in the immediate confusion following the attack, the administration were slow to publicly identify ISIS as the attacker, or didn't consistently call it an act of terror, or speculated incorrectly about some details about the circumstances around the attack, etc.

The reasonable reaction would be to give them some leeway. If the botched messaging or flubbed details made no practical difference in policy, and were cleared up in fairly short order, it just wouldn't be much of a story, right? Even the most crazed of liberals would have trouble treating that post-attack communications aspect of the story as a huge scandal. Yet now, imagine if it were a Democratic administration. Or, rather, don't imagine it, since we have a close parallel. After the Benghazi attack, there was a short period of confusion about whether or not an anti-Muslim video, which had sparked a riot at our Cairo embassy that same day, had also played a role in the Benghazi attack. Needless to say, the conservatives didn't grant the administration any leeway about that. Even though those details made no practical difference in policy, and were cleared up in fairly short order, it was treated as a major scandal. In fact, players in the administration were still being grilled relentlessly, four years later, about why they weren't quicker to definitively publicly identify ISIS as the attackers, why they speculated about a role for the video, and similar trivia. It was baffling to those of us outside the conservative media bubble.

The argument the right-wingers used to justify freaking out about short-term communications snafus regarding Benghazi was the idea that Obama had an incentive to maintain the illusion he was making progress in the war on ISIS, so his team tried to downplay the attack and the connection between ISIS and the attack. Well, in a similar sense, Trump clearly has an incentive to downplay this attack (he has yet to comment on it), and ISIS's continuing ability to harm us in Syria, since his plan for withdrawal was sold with the idea ISIS had already been defeated there. Yet, for the life of me, I can't imagine turning a little political spin about this attack into a massive four-year-long scandal. Can you?
Click to expand...

You left out the part about blaming the attack on an anti-Muslim video probably 8 people ever saw lol.

The video maker ever make it out of jail?
 
Darth Beto Omar said:
You left out the part about blaming the attack on an anti-Muslim video probably 8 people ever saw lol.
Click to expand...

Reread. As you presumably know, there was an attack just hours earlier on our Cairo embassy keyed to the outrage following Egyptian media coverage of the anti-Muslim video. So, it makes sense that initially people thought the attack on our diplomatic facility in Benghazi wasn't just coincidentally timed, but instead was also linked to that outrage. But, wingnuts needed some sort of scandal, and so they pretended that it was unreasonable to make such an assumption.... and further, that the administration deliberately got that detail wrong for some reason. But the point here is that even if the right-wing conspiracy theory were true, and the administration had mentioned a role for the video even though they internally doubted it had a role, that kind of false communication about an irrelevant contextual detail simply wouldn't justify a four-year-long witch hunt, like the one the GOP ran based on it. As you know, we could list dozens of examples of deliberate lies about fairly inconsequential things in Trump administration communications, right off the top of our heads, and the Democrats never turn those into Benghazi-style witch hunts.
 
Oneuli said:
Reread. As you presumably know, there was an attack just hours earlier on our Cairo embassy keyed to the outrage following Egyptian media coverage of the anti-Muslim video. So, it makes sense that initially people thought the attack on our diplomatic facility in Benghazi wasn't just coincidentally timed, but instead was also linked to that outrage. But, wingnuts needed some sort of scandal, and so they pretended that it was unreasonable to make such an assumption.... and further, that the administration deliberately got that detail wrong for some reason. But the point here is that even if the right-wing conspiracy theory were true, and the administration had mentioned a role for the video even though they internally doubted it had a role, that kind of false communication about an irrelevant contextual detail simply wouldn't justify a four-year-long witch hunt, like the one the GOP ran based on it. As you know, we could list dozens of examples of deliberate lies about fairly inconsequential things in Trump administration communications, right off the top of our heads, and the Democrats never turn those into Benghazi-style witch hunts.
Click to expand...

You’re right, it’s in there.

You’re posts can be a little wordy so it would help if you hit the ‘return’ button a little more often lol.

Did the video maker ever make it out of jail?
 
Frank Apisa said:
There was a time in my life where I was as "righty" as one could be.
Click to expand...

This never happened. We are all born as little commies. When feral humans are brought into the world, commie is our natural state. Our mental evolution only goes to the right as we become more civilized, and we don't devolve mentally unless we become injured or very old. Commies are not to blame for their uncivilized condition, they just haven't learned to be civilized. Once you become a righty, you don't just devolve back to being the commie you once were. There are plenty of commies who call themselves Repubs, Libertarians, and conservatives, but that doesn't change who they really are.

Frankly Fran, it is not worth it for you to try processing what I am talking about, since you can only process this debate with lefty thoughts. I still have access to my own inner commie thoughts like yours, but I also have access to righty thoughts that you don't have. You cannot see the significance of these implications.
 
Evmetro said:
This never happened.
Click to expand...

If you are saying I am lying about anything I wrote...YOU CAN GO FUCK YOURSELF.



We are all born as little commies. When feral humans are brought into the world, commie is our natural state. Our mental evolution only goes to the right as we become more civilized, and we don't devolve mentally unless we become injured or very old.
Click to expand...

The only way anyone goes to the American right at this point in time, is by subscribing to the disgusting American conservative mantra, "I've got mine, fuck everyone else."

If you are trying to convince me you are at that point...don't bother. I accept it without question. .

Commies are not to blame for their uncivilized condition, they just haven't learned to be civilized. Once you become a righty, you don't just devolve back to being the commie you once were. There are plenty of commies who call themselves Repubs, Libertarians, and conservatives, but that doesn't change who they really are.
Click to expand...

You can speak with some communists about that. I am not a communist.

Frankly Fran, it is not worth it for you to try processing what I am talking about, since you can only process this debate with lefty thoughts.
Click to expand...

Fuck you very much for that thought...but you wrong.

I still have access to my own inner commie thoughts like yours, but I also have access to righty thoughts that you don't have. You cannot see the significance of these implications.
Click to expand...

I can see that you are full of shit. That apparently is something you do not realize...or are not acknowledging as significant to our present conversation.

The significance of that is more important than any perceived significance you see in your imaginary, "...you can only process this debate with lefty thoughts"...to which I say, once again, FUCK YOU.
 
Evmetro said:
You are subjectively objective.

Ya know... All righties were once lefties. We were born as little lefties who screamed and cried for that tit or bottle, and it took years for us to become civilized. It is important to consider that since righties were once lefties, we know what it is like to be a lefty from first hand memories and knowledge. This is important, because it means that righties can actually evaluate things from both a lefty perspective, AND a righty perspective. Lefties, on the other hand, have never been righties, which means that they can only process things with lefty thoughts. Lefties cannot think like righties, but righties CAN think like lefties.

Frankly frank, you simply cannot be objective as a lefty. The best you can do is to speculate what righties think, but you can only speculate with exclusively lefty thoughts. You see and process the world though a lefty lens, so you cannot see what the rest of us see without the lefty lens that you are limited to. You can only be subjectively objective. Thanks for trying though.
Click to expand...

That kind of bullshit is why you're universally laughed at here and never taken seriously by anyone but yourself.

Sort of pathetic how you buy into your own bullshit, but no one else does.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top