SmarterthanYou
rebel
that's debatable, though I tend to agree, but it is not any different than banning some press reporters from the WH press room.
More proof Republicans don't want the common man to have the whole truth?
- Thread starter zappasguitar
- Start date
that's debatable, though I tend to agree, but it is not any different than banning some press reporters from the WH press room.
cawacko
Well-known member
You think the Democrats are going to tell the truth more accurately about the Republicans than vice versa? Now I think citizens should be able to tape their politician speaking so I disagree with the not allowing cameras. The fact that it wad an opposing party though I have no sympathy because I don't believe either party would tell the truth about each other. It would just be spin.
zappasguitar
Well-known member
The WH press room is a completely different situation from, say, the local bingo hall used for a town hall meeting.
The President MUST have a secure area to make announcements to the american people through the press...if an administration feels there's a group not engaging in honest dissemination of information, then they have the right to refuse admittance.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
fail. secure as in checking for dangerous items, yes. secure as in not reporting news the administration feels is honest, not so much.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
where was my gotcha? you said
who banned private citizens? you made the claim, i'm curious - why you think i'm playing a gotcha by asking you to support your claim? are your claims above reproach? are you the only one allowed to ask people to substantiate their claims?
secondly, banning a verified news organization is the same as banning specific members of the public. sorry, but the office of the president cannot simply ban news organizations he doesn't feel represent him in the best light. you're talking about security which has absolutely nothing to do with the issue being discussed here. foxnews is obviously prescreened and qualified to send in a reporter, wanting to ban the news organization had zero to do with security. nice try.
zappasguitar
Well-known member
First, work on your reading comprehension...we were discussing Rep Chabot banning private citizens from recording with their phones during his town hall meeting...
Second...If the President is appearing in PUBLIC he cannot have a news organization barred from recording his actions, the pressroom of the WH isn't a public space, however.
Speaking of "nice try", NICE TRY pretending to know what went on in the minds of the WH when they barred Faux News from the pressroom...I keep telling you to use your mind reading powers for good!
You claim the ban had NOTHING to do with security...prove it.
Crashk
Unite or Die
Town hall meetings have a specific purpose and history.
1) Everybody meets, everybody talks, everybody votes
A true town hall meeting is where every citizen shows up to discuss issues and then vote. One person, one vote. This isn't an advisory vote -- it decides the matter.
People expect to be able to talk at these events. If you're organizing it, don't plan on having a series of speakers. Town hall meetings are meant to involve everybody. You can't script them.
2) History
New England is famous for using this method of direct democracy, using it for more than 300 years. Many towns in states like Vermont still have town hall meetings at least once a year.
The idea is older than that. It's inspired by ancient democracy in Athens and the notion that every citizen should have a say.
The Swiss towns of Appenzell and Glarus have been holding town hall meetings -- Landsgemeinde -- for 700 years.
http://marketing.about.com/od/publicrelation1/a/townhallmeeting.htm
The key word here is 'democracy', something Yurt wants to bastardize in order to reap more profits for his corporate gods.
1) Everybody meets, everybody talks, everybody votes
A true town hall meeting is where every citizen shows up to discuss issues and then vote. One person, one vote. This isn't an advisory vote -- it decides the matter.
People expect to be able to talk at these events. If you're organizing it, don't plan on having a series of speakers. Town hall meetings are meant to involve everybody. You can't script them.
2) History
New England is famous for using this method of direct democracy, using it for more than 300 years. Many towns in states like Vermont still have town hall meetings at least once a year.
The idea is older than that. It's inspired by ancient democracy in Athens and the notion that every citizen should have a say.
The Swiss towns of Appenzell and Glarus have been holding town hall meetings -- Landsgemeinde -- for 700 years.
http://marketing.about.com/od/publicrelation1/a/townhallmeeting.htm
The key word here is 'democracy', something Yurt wants to bastardize in order to reap more profits for his corporate gods.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
so now you're back peddling on your claim:
you said citizens, not their phones. my reading comprehension is fine, you never mentioned the word camera, you specifically in all caps, said "private citizens attending" a town hall. their cameras don't attend, they do. now, did you make a mistake or did you lie? which is it?
the WH press room is for the PUBLIC press to question the president. you cannot simply kick out a major news organization just because you think they don't put the president in the best light. and the room, when used for press conferences is public. it is hilarious that you think it is ok for obama to ban a news organization from a PUBLIC news press conference, yet bad that reps, at a PRIVATE event, allow those who put on the event, charge an overhead charge. your hypocrisy is clear.
and really zappa, your claim is now that the president wanted to ban fox news over a security concern. please.
and when you start proving your claims, i will reciprocate. i've politely informed of this before. but really, you needing proof of that shows your incredible bias in hysteria.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
wow...such dishonesty in one sentence. 1. the money did not go to corporations; 2. i did not bastardize anything, if private groups want to sponsor a town hall, then they can charge whatever they want. there is no law against private groups sponsoring a town hall for representatives or the president. MTV hosted a town hall for obama, people were pre chosen, questions as well and questions from twitter. did obama bastardize the process?
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
So the PRESIDENT of the United States hiding from the opposition media is ok, but some random little House Rep in OH having a security guard take a phone and camera... that is bad?
While I agree that taking the phone and camera were ridiculous, your assertion that the Obama admin hiding from Fox is 'different' shows who the true hack is.
zappasguitar
Well-known member
so now you're back peddling on your claim:
you said citizens, not their phones. my reading comprehension is fine, you never mentioned the word camera, you specifically in all caps, said "private citizens attending" a town hall. their cameras don't attend, they do. now, did you make a mistake or did you lie? which is it?
the WH press room is for the PUBLIC press to question the president. you cannot simply kick out a major news organization just because you think they don't put the president in the best light. and the room, when used for press conferences is public. it is hilarious that you think it is ok for obama to ban a news organization from a PUBLIC news press conference, yet bad that reps, at a PRIVATE event, allow those who put on the event, charge an overhead charge. your hypocrisy is clear.
and really zappa, your claim is now that the president wanted to ban fox news over a security concern. please.
and when you start proving your claims, i will reciprocate. i've politely informed of this before. but really, you needing proof of that shows your incredible bias in hysteria.
Of course what Yurskin won't admit, even though he regularly claims he knows what other people are thinking, is that he realizes that I SIMPLY MADE A MISTAKE.
He knows what I meant in my OP, indeed what I have meant all along, that citizens attending a REPUBLICAN TOWN HALL MEETING HAD THEIR PHONES CONFISCATED, but does that stop him from playing his ridiculous "gotcha" game by parsing words and playing semantic word games?
Of course not...but it's literally all he's got...otherwise he'd have to admit that I was right and he's once again being the disingenuous asswipe.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Well as a fellow Democrat I can only say "What are you, nuts?"
zappasguitar
Well-known member
"Hiding" from Faux News?
Really?
You do remember the big interview he gave to O'Really prior to the SuperBowl, right? How long did Big Bill have to track the elusive Obama before he caught up with the unwary President and bagged himself an interview??
If a supposed"news" network can't even be bothered to TRY and write the truth, then why should they waste the space some other REAL reporter might utilize better?
Could you possibly be a bigger partisan hack?
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
this is truly hilarious. first you insult me by claiming i regularly claim to know what people are thinking and then you get pissed because i should have known what you were thinking. good lord, it doesn't matter what i do, i'm always wrong with you. your hatred is overwhelming your common sense. first i'm wrong to try and know what people are thinking, then i'm wrong because i don't try and do that, but instead take your words at face value.
that is why i asked if you made a mistake. you could have cleared this up the first time instead of dishonestly moving the goal posts. there was no gotcha game, you said specific words and i simply asked you about the very words you used. phones do not attend meetings. you claimed "private citizens" were banned from attending. instead of frothing at the mouth over someone asking you about words you said, why not calmly just admit you made a mistake?
is it really that difficult?
zappasguitar
Well-known member
What is hilarious is that ordinarily, you have this incessant need to tell others what they REALLY meant, but for some reason in this thread only, suddenly you've lost your amazing mind reading powers and somehow find it impossible to deduce that I mistakenly left off a couple words at the the end of a sentence.
But hey...CONGRATS!
You successfully derailed the discussion about the idiot Rightie Representative who confiscated phones and cameras from attendees because he was too scared to face them on camera.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
just a reminder that zappa believes if you play around with someone's username, you're a douchebag:
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
1. i don't do so anymore than anyone else. you do so quite frequently. it is called human nature and it is more necessary on a messageboard to try and understand what people are thinking via only text. it is really boggling how much time you spend criticizing me for this when you and others do the same thing. further, it is telling that when i don't do it, i'm wrong for not reading your mind. you are incapable of just simply admitting you screwed up. your words were clear and unambiguous, and here you are DEMANDING that i should read your mind. good lord, do you not see what a whiny two faced hack you are?
2. i have not derailed anything. i guess in your hack world ASKING you about a claim YOU made is derailing a thread.
3. i already addressed the camera taking pages ago. oooops. busted in yet another mistake zappa. tell me, do i need to read your mind to understand you meant something else? will you apologize and admit you are wrong and that i did face the camera taking pages ago?
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Yes... hiding.... hence the whole attempt to ban them and call them 'not a real news organization because they won't say exactly what I want them to like the rest of the media'
So you think we should eliminate CNBC, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, SeeBS, the NY Times, the LA Times? OK.
One could always aspire to your level of partisan hackery.
zappasguitar
Well-known member
What's funny how disingenuous douchebags like you who whine that simply because many daily newspapers and the big TV networks don't have an assembly line cranking out glowing puff-piece tributes to the Republican party 24/7, that they must then be biased.
Reportng the devious tricks "Christian Republicans" regularly resort to in order to win elections earned them nothing but scorn from conservatives eager to tell one more lie and label them "biased".
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
Have any cameras been confiscated at Obama events?