- Joined
- Jul 21, 2005
- Messages
- 51,710
- Reaction score
- 35,488
- Location
- Washington, DC
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Re: "Racial insensitivity" accusation in U.K over Romney advisor "Anglo-Saxon" commen
Let me walk you through this
No, it's not. It's FACT that Republicans have tried for the past four years to suggest, as I stated, that:
I did not suggest that it's fact that he, Obama, DID act that way. I stated it was FACT that Republicans have been trying to suggest he has. That's not an opinion. That's simple fact.
Original statement:
It is a FACT that Republicans put forth an argument that Obama sending the Bust of Winston Churchhill back to England was poor treatment to england. Again, that is FACT. Republicans DID argue that. It is a FACT that they offered that up as an "Example" to criticize Obama's treatment of England. That is not False. That is not an Opinion. That is accurately, factually, reporting on what some conservatives DID DO.
Please...show me where in my statement there is a falsehood. Show me where in that statement there is suggestion that it's a good argument. You won't find it. It is an example of something Republicans have argued against Obama on regarding his treatment of England. Whether they've fought well, honestly, or stupidly doesn't matter to my point...my point was that they have made suggestions that he's done a poor job with diplomatic relations. That is an example of them doing such.
Same as above. Again, my comment:
Again, this is an EXAMPLE of a Republican/Conservative argument that was made against Obama. Again, your own links back up that Republicans did argue this. That is not OPINION. That is not falsehood. THAT IS FACT. I, again, am making no claim to their argument itself being the full truth, their argument being good, or their conclusion from the argument being sound. I only put forward an example to prove, through FACTS, that Republicans have made a habit of complaining about what, in their view, was poor treatment of England by Obama.
It doesn't matter if they were or weren't. I was never arguing whether they were or not. I was simply arguing that Republicans argued that they were snubs, thus showing a pattern of Republicans complaining about Obama's treatment of foreign allies. Whether it was or wasn't really a snub is irrelevant to that point.
My screen names not dear, and I sure as hell am not your dear. Save that term for your wife or significant other, not me.
Yes, I recognized that the Republicans characterized them as being snubs...because the republicans DID characterize them as being snubs. That's important because their characterization...right or wrong...shows a pattern of suggesting that Obama snubs our allies.
Again...you seem to have an issue with definitions. I am not trying to further the progress of; support, or encourage those arguments of "snubs" by Republicans. I am not trying to give publicity to them to try and give increased public awareness to their point. I am not PROMOTING them. I am referencing them as facts to promote an entirely different notion.
Since you have not seemed to grasp what I am promoting yet, let me explain it to you clearly...
I am promoting the notion that for the past 4 years Republicans have been making the augment that Obama treats our allies poorly. THAT'S what I'm promoting. That the Republicans have been doing that. That's it. I'm not promoting their position is correct, incorrect, or anything. I'm not promoting any political opinion on that actual thing. I'm doing what a reporter does...I'm stating fact in an unbias way. It is a FACT that Republicans have been making that argument towards Obama.
The fact the Bust was returned, was not a lie. The fact that i said Republicans complained about it and suggested it was a Snub, was not a lie. What is a lie is suggesting that I stated it was a snub. I did not. I stated that some argued that it was such, to prove the point that such arguments have been around for some time with Obama.
Again, no...I'm not. I'm telling you what they said and argued. I absolutely agree that the GOP misrepresented what actually occurred with the bust. That's irrelevant to my point.
Actually, that wasn't me introducing straw. I've asked you to point blank explain EXACTLY what you keep saying is a lie and a falsehood. You refuse to do that, continuing to talk in generalities and refusing to say specifically...so to even have a conversation I'm having to make guesses as to what you're referencing.
Please...be my guest....point out exactly what things are "lies" and then we can discuss those instead of me having to guess. So far, you seem to be saying that the the GOP's arguments are lies. In which case...........okay, that has nothing to do with my point, so I'm not sure why you keep blabbering about it. Whether or not the GOP's comments were lies or not is irrelevant to whether or not they made the argument.
My entire point doesn't care about the basis of their complaining. It is irrelevant to my point.
My point is that they complained. Their complaining shows a pattern of activities that demonstrate that it's been a 4 years meme of some in the GOP to suggest that Obama treats our allies badly, with England being one oft referred to.
Thank you for finally acknowledging the complaining is fact....THAT WAS MY ENTIRE POINT.
I repeat past "supposed diplomatic 'snubs'" to highlight what you yourself just acknowledged....that the Republicans have had a history of complaining about Obama diplomatic treatment of England. Thus, providing evidence to suggest that it's at least POSSIBLE that this comment that can be interpreted as them suggesting Obama does not value our historical relationship with England which falls in line with that line of attack that's been going on for four years.
You mean it's usual for me to throw legitimate facts of actual things that have occurred into the discussion to back up my point? Absolutely, thanks for the compliment. As to doing it to suggest that it's ridiculously short sited to suggest there is only one way to possibly view the comments intention without being racist or clueless...if you want to say that's a BS semantic argument, be my guest. It shows you don't know how to use the word correctly.
Considering it appeared that you were suggesting that it was a "lie" to suggest that Republicans did make complaints about Obama's actions diplomatically with England and that it's a "lie" to suggest there's even a possibility that the unnamed aides words could mean something other than the interpretation my original post argued against....yes, yes that would be a retarded idea.
I keep repeating facts regarding what some Republicans have argued in the past to provide factual evidence for my premise. If such a concept is "beyond you" then I frankly am at a loss for how to explain it to you.
See, here's the problem with this little comment.
YOU responded to my post first. I'm not going to magically change the premise of my original statement that YOU chose to engage simply because you haven't directly said some of the things in it. When you come in and immediately disagree with my initial post, seemingly across the board, then I'm going to respond under the impression that you disagree with my post, seemingly across the board. You seem to have his mistaken impression that I engaged you first. That is simply not true. I made a post, in part referencing and responding to arguments made in this thread by other posters. You decided to quote my post and begin to disagree with it's premise, a premise that was the "racial" argument is not the only way this comment could possibly be read. So naturally, I'm going to respond to your disagreements with my point by arguing my original point...the one YOU decided to engage. If you wish to complain about courtesy, then understand what you're responding too first.
Let me walk you through this
No, it's not. It's FACT that Republicans have tried for the past four years to suggest, as I stated, that:
I did not suggest that it's fact that he, Obama, DID act that way. I stated it was FACT that Republicans have been trying to suggest he has. That's not an opinion. That's simple fact.
Original statement:
It is a FACT that Republicans put forth an argument that Obama sending the Bust of Winston Churchhill back to England was poor treatment to england. Again, that is FACT. Republicans DID argue that. It is a FACT that they offered that up as an "Example" to criticize Obama's treatment of England. That is not False. That is not an Opinion. That is accurately, factually, reporting on what some conservatives DID DO.
Please...show me where in my statement there is a falsehood. Show me where in that statement there is suggestion that it's a good argument. You won't find it. It is an example of something Republicans have argued against Obama on regarding his treatment of England. Whether they've fought well, honestly, or stupidly doesn't matter to my point...my point was that they have made suggestions that he's done a poor job with diplomatic relations. That is an example of them doing such.
Same as above. Again, my comment:
Again, this is an EXAMPLE of a Republican/Conservative argument that was made against Obama. Again, your own links back up that Republicans did argue this. That is not OPINION. That is not falsehood. THAT IS FACT. I, again, am making no claim to their argument itself being the full truth, their argument being good, or their conclusion from the argument being sound. I only put forward an example to prove, through FACTS, that Republicans have made a habit of complaining about what, in their view, was poor treatment of England by Obama.
It doesn't matter if they were or weren't. I was never arguing whether they were or not. I was simply arguing that Republicans argued that they were snubs, thus showing a pattern of Republicans complaining about Obama's treatment of foreign allies. Whether it was or wasn't really a snub is irrelevant to that point.
My screen names not dear, and I sure as hell am not your dear. Save that term for your wife or significant other, not me.
Yes, I recognized that the Republicans characterized them as being snubs...because the republicans DID characterize them as being snubs. That's important because their characterization...right or wrong...shows a pattern of suggesting that Obama snubs our allies.
Again...you seem to have an issue with definitions. I am not trying to further the progress of; support, or encourage those arguments of "snubs" by Republicans. I am not trying to give publicity to them to try and give increased public awareness to their point. I am not PROMOTING them. I am referencing them as facts to promote an entirely different notion.
Since you have not seemed to grasp what I am promoting yet, let me explain it to you clearly...
I am promoting the notion that for the past 4 years Republicans have been making the augment that Obama treats our allies poorly. THAT'S what I'm promoting. That the Republicans have been doing that. That's it. I'm not promoting their position is correct, incorrect, or anything. I'm not promoting any political opinion on that actual thing. I'm doing what a reporter does...I'm stating fact in an unbias way. It is a FACT that Republicans have been making that argument towards Obama.
The fact the Bust was returned, was not a lie. The fact that i said Republicans complained about it and suggested it was a Snub, was not a lie. What is a lie is suggesting that I stated it was a snub. I did not. I stated that some argued that it was such, to prove the point that such arguments have been around for some time with Obama.
Again, no...I'm not. I'm telling you what they said and argued. I absolutely agree that the GOP misrepresented what actually occurred with the bust. That's irrelevant to my point.
Actually, that wasn't me introducing straw. I've asked you to point blank explain EXACTLY what you keep saying is a lie and a falsehood. You refuse to do that, continuing to talk in generalities and refusing to say specifically...so to even have a conversation I'm having to make guesses as to what you're referencing.
Please...be my guest....point out exactly what things are "lies" and then we can discuss those instead of me having to guess. So far, you seem to be saying that the the GOP's arguments are lies. In which case...........okay, that has nothing to do with my point, so I'm not sure why you keep blabbering about it. Whether or not the GOP's comments were lies or not is irrelevant to whether or not they made the argument.
My entire point doesn't care about the basis of their complaining. It is irrelevant to my point.
My point is that they complained. Their complaining shows a pattern of activities that demonstrate that it's been a 4 years meme of some in the GOP to suggest that Obama treats our allies badly, with England being one oft referred to.
Thank you for finally acknowledging the complaining is fact....THAT WAS MY ENTIRE POINT.
I repeat past "supposed diplomatic 'snubs'" to highlight what you yourself just acknowledged....that the Republicans have had a history of complaining about Obama diplomatic treatment of England. Thus, providing evidence to suggest that it's at least POSSIBLE that this comment that can be interpreted as them suggesting Obama does not value our historical relationship with England which falls in line with that line of attack that's been going on for four years.
You mean it's usual for me to throw legitimate facts of actual things that have occurred into the discussion to back up my point? Absolutely, thanks for the compliment. As to doing it to suggest that it's ridiculously short sited to suggest there is only one way to possibly view the comments intention without being racist or clueless...if you want to say that's a BS semantic argument, be my guest. It shows you don't know how to use the word correctly.
Considering it appeared that you were suggesting that it was a "lie" to suggest that Republicans did make complaints about Obama's actions diplomatically with England and that it's a "lie" to suggest there's even a possibility that the unnamed aides words could mean something other than the interpretation my original post argued against....yes, yes that would be a retarded idea.
I keep repeating facts regarding what some Republicans have argued in the past to provide factual evidence for my premise. If such a concept is "beyond you" then I frankly am at a loss for how to explain it to you.
See, here's the problem with this little comment.
YOU responded to my post first. I'm not going to magically change the premise of my original statement that YOU chose to engage simply because you haven't directly said some of the things in it. When you come in and immediately disagree with my initial post, seemingly across the board, then I'm going to respond under the impression that you disagree with my post, seemingly across the board. You seem to have his mistaken impression that I engaged you first. That is simply not true. I made a post, in part referencing and responding to arguments made in this thread by other posters. You decided to quote my post and begin to disagree with it's premise, a premise that was the "racial" argument is not the only way this comment could possibly be read. So naturally, I'm going to respond to your disagreements with my point by arguing my original point...the one YOU decided to engage. If you wish to complain about courtesy, then understand what you're responding too first.
