Wow.

Some guys here are really outing themselves as Mr Shack-in-the-Woods

Blutarski
A hypothetical worst-case scenario: the White House make 'an attempted political power play' by excluding Fox from press briefings.

Result: failure, increased ratings for Fox. White House retreats with tail between its legs.

I don't think that is actually what happened, but if it did then all is well, the Obama administration has learned how far it can manipulate the media. What's the problem?

And please don't try to claim that previous administrations haven't also tried to manipulate the media to their advantage too. Most often they were probably more subtle though. I would put it all down to naivete, or over-confidence in their assessment of how Fox was percieved by the public, rather than anything else.

quote:

Originally posted by AndyJWest:
Blutarski
A hypothetical worst-case scenario: the White House make 'an attempted political power play' by excluding Fox from press briefings.

Result: failure, increased ratings for Fox. White House retreats with tail between its legs.

I don't think that is actually what happened, but if it did then all is well, the Obama administration has learned how far it can manipulate the media. What's the problem?

..... Hardly a >>worst case scenario<<. THIS is a worst case scenario from my point of view: government punishes critical media organization by freezing it out. Other media firms become fearful and tailor their coverage to avoid similar intimidation. The activities of government are no longer openly and honestly reported to the public. Unchecked political excesses and corruption ensue.

quote:

And please don't try to claim that previous administrations haven't also tried to manipulate the media to their advantage too. Most often they were probably more subtle though. I would put it all down to naivete, or over-confidence in their assessment of how Fox was percieved by the public, rather than anything else.

..... Stop trying to shift the subject, Andy; there is a vast difference between trying to manipulate the media and trying to INTIMIDATE the media. You're hiding under a bedspread of equivocation.

quote:

Originally posted by Blutarski2004:

quote:

Originally posted by AndyJWest:
Blutarski
A hypothetical worst-case scenario: the White House make 'an attempted political power play' by excluding Fox from press briefings.

Result: failure, increased ratings for Fox. White House retreats with tail between its legs.

I don't think that is actually what happened, but if it did then all is well, the Obama administration has learned how far it can manipulate the media. What's the problem?

..... Hardly a >>worst case scenario<<. THIS is a worst case scenario from my point of view: government punishes critical media organization by freezing it out. Other media firms become fearful and tailor their coverage to avoid similar intimidation. The activities of government are no longer openly and honestly reported to the public. Unchecked political excesses and corruption ensue.

quote:

And please don't try to claim that previous administrations haven't also tried to manipulate the media to their advantage too. Most often they were probably more subtle though. I would put it all down to naivete, or over-confidence in their assessment of how Fox was percieved by the public, rather than anything else.

..... Stop trying to shift the subject, Andy; there is a vast difference between trying to manipulate the media and trying to INTIMIDATE the media. You're hiding under a bedspread of equivocation.

Yes, but your 'worst case scenario didn't happen did it, even if that was what the White House intended?

If it was an attempt at intimidation, it was a fairly useless one. I don't think it qualifies as intimidation, you do. A difference of opinion, nothing more. You seem to have a higher view of the foresight of the Obama administration than I do, and can't accept that it might have just been an act of frustration, rather than some deep plot to subvert press freedom. I'm more likely to see the world as driven by co ck-ups than conspiracies, mostly because it seems to explain what is going on better most of the time.

'A bedspread of equivication'? That is a new one on me. Is it warm? With winter coming, and energy prices being the way they are, I could probably do with one of those.

quote:

Originally posted by AndyJWest: Yes, but your 'worst case scenario didn't happen did it, even if that was what the White House intended?

..... Andy, do you actually understand what a "worst case scenario" is?

quote:

If it was an attempt at intimidation, it was a fairly useless one.

..... No, it was an >>unsuccessful<< one.

quote:

I don't think it qualifies as intimidation, you do. A difference of opinion, nothing more. You seem to have a higher view of the foresight of the Obama administration than I do, and can't accept that it might have just been an act of frustration, rather than some deep plot to subvert press freedom. I'm more likely to see the world as driven by ****-ups than conspiracies, mostly because it seems to explain what is going on better most of the time.

..... You are spot on in defining the crux of our disagreement. You are incapable of imputing any ugly motives whatever on the part of the 0bama administration and I am incapable of believing that this administration is so naive and unsophisticated as to have reacted out of simple adolescent frustration.

quote:

'A bedspread of equivication'? That is a new one on me. Is it warm? With winter coming, and energy prices being the way they are, I could probably do with one of those.

..... I fear it is going to be a long cold winter for us all, Andy.

@Blutarski2004

From the dictionary:

in·tim·i·date, v.
(in⋅tim⋅i⋅da⋅tion, n.)

1. To make timid; fill with fear.
2. To coerce or inhibit by or as if by threats
Synonyms:
1. frighten, subdue, daunt, terrify.

I don't quite think that word means what you seem to think it means. Unless you are really frightened and terrified by me not telling you what I'm doing right now.
You seem quite passionate about something, but with so many words taking alternative meanings it's really hard to understand what it is. Can you translate your thesis into English, so that we can discuss it, or find an English-speaking person to summarize it for us?

Blutarski writes:

quote:

..... You are spot on in defining the crux of our disagreement. You are incapable of imputing any ugly motives whatever on the part of the 0bama administration and I am incapable of believing that this administration is so naive and unsophisticated as to have reacted out of simple adolescent frustration.

Just because I don't see any particularly ugly motives in this case, there is no reason why I should be incapable of seeing them in the future: I just need to see some evidence first. I'm sure I will find plenty to criticise Obama on, but I don't automatically assume the worst. You do.


It seems that what you see is this:


I see this:

quote:

Originally posted by SterlingX:

Ah, gotcher blinders on and you're ready for a heaping glass of koolaide.

quote:

Originally posted by SterlingX:
@Blutarski2004

From the dictionary:

in·tim·i·date, v.
(in⋅tim⋅i⋅da⋅tion, n.)

1. To make timid; fill with fear.
2. To coerce or inhibit by or as if by threats
Synonyms:
1. frighten, subdue, daunt, terrify.

I don't quite think that word means what you seem to think it means. Unless you are really frightened and terrified by me not telling you what I'm doing right now.
You seem quite passionate about something, but with so many words taking alternative meanings it's really hard to understand what it is. Can you translate your thesis into English, so that we can discuss it, or find an English-speaking person to summarize it for us?

..... I understand perfectly well the definition of the word INTIMIDATE and its usage, but thank you for taking the trouble to post a definition; perhaps it may prove helpful to others. You may also take comfort in the knowledge that I do not feel frightened by what you have written - you seem a harmless enough person seeking only to add his opinion to this discussion. Good for you; that's what forums like this are for. I do, however, feel obliged to suggest that if you have been unable to understand what I write, then you should perhaps consider abandoning the English language for a means of communication more accommodating to your intellectual level.

You have hopefully grasped the fact that I just insulted you. If so, you should be excited to have learned that you really CAN understand what I write. Armed with that newfound confidence, take another crack at reading my previous posts. Hopefully you'll have better luck the second time around and will be able to contribute more meaningfully to the discussion.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Blutarski2004,

quote:

Originally posted by AndyJWest:
Blutarski writes:

quote:

..... You are spot on in defining the crux of our disagreement. You are incapable of imputing any ugly motives whatever on the part of the 0bama administration and I am incapable of believing that this administration is so naive and unsophisticated as to have reacted out of simple adolescent frustration.

Just because I don't see any particularly ugly motives in this case, there is no reason why I should be incapable of seeing them in the future: I just need to see some evidence first. I'm sure I will find plenty to criticise Obama on, but I don't automatically assume the worst. You do.


It seems that what you see is this: [mountain]

I see this: [molehill]

..... Andy, you see mountains and molehills on the landscape of humanity. I see mountains, molehills, and piles of feces. And the molehills and the piles of feces are often difficult to tell apart. And therein lies the difference between us. >>In my opinion<< you are a utopian willing to believe the best of anyone and everyone who might appear to share your dreams and the worst of those who don't. I, on the other hand, am a happily reformed idealist who has acquired over the course of my life a healthy hard-earned skepticism toward the world and especially the political creatures who populate it.

quote:

..... Andy, you see mountains and molehills on the landscape of humanity. I see mountains, molehills, and piles of feces. And the molehills and the piles of feces are often difficult to tell apart. And therein lies the difference between us. >>In my opinion<< you are a utopian willing to believe the best of anyone and everyone who might appear to share your dreams and the worst of those who don't. I, on the other hand, am a happily reformed idealist who has acquired over the course of my life a healthy hard-earned skepticism toward the world and especially the political creatures who populate it.

So ultimately Blutarski, it all comes down to your skepticism being right, and my idealism being wrong? Hardly amounts to evidence, does it? I also think I know enough about idealism and scepiticism to suggest that there is a lot more of the former in your political viewpoint than you would like to admit to, and I can assure you I am not only capable of scepticism, but that if anything it is my initial response to most things. There is a difference between not taking things at face value, however, and assuming everything is part of some infernal strategy to take over the universe.

I could comment on your 'pile of feces' metaphor, but frankly I can't be bothered. I'll leave that for others to throw back at you at an opportune time. I'm sure it will arise.

quote:

It's a religion,

And as such, it's dangerous as any other one.
----
Oh, BTW:
People and races have mixed ever-since.
That's the way history works.

The problem are the sub-cultures arising out of immigrants unwilling to fit themselves in.

quote:

Originally posted by AndyJWest:
So ultimately Blutarski, it all comes down to your skepticism being right, and my idealism being wrong? Hardly amounts to evidence, does it? I also think I know enough about idealism and scepiticism to suggest that there is a lot more of the former in your political viewpoint than you would like to admit to, and I can assure you I am not only capable of scepticism, but that if anything it is my initial response to most things. There is a difference between not taking things at face value, however, and assuming everything is part of some infernal strategy to take over the universe.

I could comment on your 'pile of feces' metaphor, but frankly I can't be bothered. I'll leave that for others to throw back at you at an opportune time. I'm sure it will arise.

..... LOL. I didn't employ the feces allusion to insult you, Andy. It simply served as a metaphor for things not always really being what they seem from afar - in this case, the molehills you referenced. If I offended you, it was purely unintentional.

As for evidence .... about what? We presumably are working from the same material facts and are reaching different diiferent conclusions. You're willing to give benefit of the doubt; I see darker underlying motives. That equals a difference of opinion, nothing more or less. Do I think you're wrong? Yes, I do. Is it possible to definitively prove that you are wrong? Not with the available evidence. Is it possible to definitively prove that I am wrong? Not with the available evidence. All I have done is render my OPINION about why you think the way you do and why I think the way I do.

Chill out.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Now as I see it the other news channels voiced their dislike of Fox being left out as a sign that even though they are competitors they still had the right to free speech and press as stated in the United states constitution.


So by denying Fox the oportunity of freedom of the Press you have basically removed the 1st amendment from the constitution. So by the other news stations voicing their concerns it made the White House rethink their choice of destroying the right of free speech and press.

And its funny how religion showed up in this topic also as that is also part of the 1st amendment.

One of the reasons we have the right to bear arms in this country is not because of any of the law makers in the past century. It is because of the voice of the people. So if the voice of the people say yes it is ok to stop one news orginization from its freedom of speech and press soon others will be muted the same way.


So ask yourself is it fair to stop one station from reporting the news the way they see it? And then ask yourself what will be next? Will i have to change my religion to that of a state religion and why cant I protest the fact that I dont want to be that religion. Because if you give up one part of an amendment the rest will soon follow.

Lol, no one is stomping on FOX's freedom of press! They are still free to publish anything they please. Freedom of the press does not guarantee that the Whitehouse will talk to them, or let them in the door. That may be an unpopular move, but by no means is it a violation of the first amendment or an abridgment of freedoms. So qwitcherbithin people, no one is stepping on freedom. The KKK can say whatever they want and publish newsletters and are protected under the first amendment, but that doesn't mean they should be allowed at Whitehouse press conferences. Now that's not to compare the KKK to FOX, so don't get your panties in a bunch about that, I'm just pointing out that the first amendment is not in danger on this one guys.