Page 44 of 45 FirstFirst ... 3442434445 LastLast
Results 431 to 440 of 450

Thread: Etheridge caught in on-camera confrontation

  1. #431
    User
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Last Seen
    06-17-10 @ 07:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    18

    Re: Etheridge caught in on-camera confrontation

    Quote Originally Posted by hazlnut View Post
    Obama Agenda - a vague wording deliberately used by partisan hacks to appeal to teabrains and far-righties. What does it mean? Ask a Beck fan and you'll get more vague notions and negative spin loosely based on facts.

    His agenda on what exactly?

    And why ask a congressman (legislative branch) about the President's(executive branch) agenda.???




    No, it's called acting like a Douchebag. And getting your wagon fixed.
    Here are some teabrains as you describe them for using the term "Agenda" for the president or the democrats. (NBC, LA Times, Time, Media Matters, Huffington Post, Obama, the DNC)

    The Democratic Party

    Matt Finkelstein: Rep. Boehner Embraces Extremism: "No Difference" Between GOP And Tea Party

    Obama's agenda may not add up - Los Angeles Times

    First Read - Obama agenda: Turning to health care

    A New New Deal - Obama's Agenda: Get America Back on Track - TIME

    and here are some that used the term when Bush was president....

    CNN.com - Homeland security tops Bush agenda - Nov. 8, 2002

    Bush agenda faces some GOP resistance - The Boston Globe

    Amazon.com: The Bush Agenda: Invading the World, One Economy at a Time (9780060878788): Antonia Juhasz: Books

    Bush agenda faces uphill climb in lame-duck Congress - USATODAY.com


    So keep arguing all you want. It's a common term used by both sides. You have no legs to stand on with this one.

  2. #432
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Last Seen
    02-16-11 @ 08:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    36,915
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Etheridge caught in on-camera confrontation

    Quote Originally Posted by Alastor View Post
    I wasn't aware you got to tell me when the discussion ended. In fact, I'm still not aware of that.

    I've laid out the reasons that the claim that these were just innocent kids doesn't make sense.

    Some will choose to try to sweep that aside or ignore it. Others will look at it objectively.

    Which you personally choose to do isn't really my problem. I feel I've been objective and credible in every comment I've made so far, without side-stepping anything and without playing partisan stunts. I think that others reading this thread would probably come to the same conclusion.

    I'm content to let it sit where we're at if you are.
    What you should be aware of his how you are being laughed at for proposing wild conspiracy theories without a shred of evidence.

    And yeah, I'm content to sit where we're at: you are creating fairy tales and I have made statements based on facts. By all means, we can let it rest here. Like I said, end of discussion.

  3. #433
    Educator Alastor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Reality
    Last Seen
    06-08-14 @ 06:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    645

    Re: Etheridge caught in on-camera confrontation

    You keep calling me a liar, but I've never lied about anything in this thread.

    I've called for accountability and I got on Hazlnut when he tried to put the blame on the camera men instead of on Etheridge. I believe Etheridge should be held fully accountable for his actions. I've said as much from the start of this thread.

    You can keep calling me a liar all you want, but you have yet to show anything I lied about. Why do you keep trying to insult, antagonize and silence me?

    You asked for evidence. I've posted it many times in this thread.

    Here's a refresher:

    Quote Originally Posted by Alastor View Post
    No, they specifically targeted this particular senator. I also believe this was a private fundraiser that wasn't at the usual place for Etheridge.

    They knew where he was and they were looking for him.

    Yeah, you sure are. This could very well cost this senator his seat. A journalist has a lot of motivation to say who he is and to post the blog on his site. A student has a lot of interest in telling his professor about it and coming forward to explain themselves. It's entirely possible (and in fact likely) that this was a set-up staged by political groups who wanted to make the senator look bad (and did so effectively).

    They did provoke the reaction. That's not an attempt to excuse Etheridge for taking the bait, but they most certainly did provoke him.

    They used an inflammatory question that was clearly loaded. They ambushed him on a sidewalk after a fund-raiser, not at the Capital. They had cameras rolling. They refused to identify themselves which while not legally required to do so, it's a fair question and is something that a legitimate student or reporter should have done. Declining to identify themselves - whether by design or by coincidence - served to exacerbate the situation.

    Yes. There's a lot here that looks fishy. I think anyone saying otherwise is either too partisan to admit they see the tree, or too naive for their opinion to carry much weight.

    This absolutely reeks of a set-up, and the longer we go without knowing who the two camera men were, the more it looks that way.

    Etheridge reacted badly, but it certainly does appear he was set up, and saying "please" does not make a person polite. The questions were loaded, hostile, and aggressive. So were the reactions of the students to his question of their identity.

    Just because someone says please does not make them polite. It just makes them insidious.

    I strongly disagree. Common sense is a big part of real life. I can find no reason why legitimate students would refuse to identify themselves. I find no reason why legitimate journalists would not identify themselves. I find no reason why they would take such great lengths to try to remain anonymous while still going out of their way to make sure the video hit the Internet - unless they were looking for this result all along.
    That's the same thing I've said from the get-go.

    Also, how did they know where he'd be? How did they get there? They knew him on sight, despite that I've never even heard of the guy before.

    Despite appearing to be "scared" they refused to say their names, what school they were from, or what project they were working on. A genuinely scared person would probably answer those questions.

    It's obvious that they weren't trying to have a private, off the record conversation, so there wasn't any reason to try to remain anonymous, was there? I mean they had cameras there, they were acting like reporters. They obviously didn't intend to just ask the Senator a question off the record - so why refuse to identify themselves?

    There are other interesting things to consider as well.




    So there you go. Common sense. I've endured your repeated insults. Now, tell me why you're afraid to find out who these camera men really were.

    If you can muster the character to do so.

    I doubt you will, but maybe you'll surprise me.

  4. #434
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Last Seen
    02-16-11 @ 08:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    36,915
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Etheridge caught in on-camera confrontation

    Quote Originally Posted by Alastor View Post
    You keep calling me a liar, but I've never lied about anything in this thread.
    I hope you aren't directing that to me as I have not once called you a liar.

  5. #435
    Educator Alastor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Reality
    Last Seen
    06-08-14 @ 06:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    645

    Re: Etheridge caught in on-camera confrontation

    Quote Originally Posted by jallman View Post
    I hope you aren't directing that to me as I have not once called you a liar.
    No, it was not directed at you. Apologies if it seemed that way.

  6. #436
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Last Seen
    02-16-11 @ 08:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    36,915
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Etheridge caught in on-camera confrontation

    Quote Originally Posted by Alastor View Post
    No, it was not directed at you. Apologies if it seemed that way.
    I was just making sure because I didn't want you taking offense over a misunderstanding. I don't think you are a liar at all.

  7. #437
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Naperville, IL
    Last Seen
    09-24-12 @ 02:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    11,963

    Re: Etheridge caught in on-camera confrontation

    Quote Originally Posted by Mcygee View Post
    So, you list a bunch of articles and sites where the Obama agenda is describe in detail... as a COMPARISON to two little twerps asking a dumb, dickish question to a congressman walking from one place to another...

    Are you serious?
    Last edited by hazlnut; 06-18-10 at 12:15 PM.

  8. #438
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    07-01-10 @ 02:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    157

    Re: Etheridge caught in on-camera confrontation

    Quote Originally Posted by winston53660 View Post
    No I'm not. It is a form of legal harassment.


    I never said it should be illegal. And I have stated previously that it should be be legal.
    You're correct. I apologize for the misunderstanding.

    I'm sorry but sticking a camera on the street and banging off questions is a form of harassment. I know I have done it.
    They weren't "banging off questions" or "harassing" anyone. They introduced themselves and proceeded to ask a single innocuous question of an elected representative.

    Harassment - to disturb persistently; torment, as with troubles or cares; bother continually; pester; persecute.

    Harassment | Define Harassment at Dictionary.com


    "Do you agree with the Obama agenda?" Is a simple question?
    Yes, as it can be answered simply and easily - that's how you know if something's a simple question.

    A complex or hard question would have been: What is your understanding of general relativity as it applies or does not apply at the subatomic level?

    That question cannot be answered simply or easily, thus it is a complex or hard question.

    I'm all agree with at least one thing he has done
    Come again?

    They ambushed himm with a camera.
    Your misuse of words is starting to become a pattern.

    Ambush - an act or instance of attacking unexpectedly from a concealed position.

    Ambush | Define Ambush at Dictionary.com


    And they want to stay anon.
    So what?

    Why do you get to define what appropriate or acceptable journalism is? Are you the journalism czar or something?

  9. #439
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    07-01-10 @ 02:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    157

    idea Re: Etheridge caught in on-camera confrontation

    Quote Originally Posted by Alastor View Post
    I believe in integrity. I believe in accountability. I believe in knowing the reasons behind something that appears to be contrived. I believe in holding all parties to a reasonable standard, not just those that ally with my political adversaries.

    What Etheridge did was wrong, but so is what they did.

    Etheridge should be held accountable, and so should they.
    Why do you get to dictate the standards for acceptable and ethical practices in journalism? Why should your personal beliefs and morality hold anymore sway on the topic than mine or these college students'?

    I don't think their "journalistic integrity" is at issue because they refuse to identify themselves. Who in their right mind would want some political machine to start coming through their lives? Anonymity is a powerful tool in the free dissemination of information; there is nothing wrong with employing it when you have prima facie evidence of a wrongful or illegal act.

    Quote Originally Posted by hazlnut View Post
    I can't believe some people are denying that it was a dickish, baiting question asked to get a response that would later be used to create a video for Youtube making Dems look bad.... This is obvious.

    The response they got was more than they bargained for and certainly now serves their purpose of making the Dems looks bad. Unfortunately, the blurred faces and anonymity about the video raises questions, but they still achieved their goal.

    What was inappropriate or unprofessional was approaching the congressman and not introducing themselves, presenting some form of ID (like a letter from their teacher or school ID) and then briefly explaining what their "project" was about. That's how it's done.

    In reality, their journalism teacher should have taught them that you should always write or telephone the office first.

    Period.
    Journalism teachers are just human beings, overpaid ones at that. You nor they have some divine mandate to define what the acceptable or ethical standards of "journalism" are.

    I deny your morality and substitute my own. Anonymity is a powerful tool in the free dissemination of information, which is a check on centralized power structures. My sympathies lie with liberty, not some politician's privacy or sense of entitlement.

    They work for us. We can ask them questions whenever the hell we please. We're the boss.

  10. #440
    Student Frozengale's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Last Seen
    11-23-10 @ 04:57 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    161

    Re: Etheridge caught in on-camera confrontation

    Quote Originally Posted by hazlnut View Post
    So, you list a bunch of articles and sites where the Obama agenda is describe in detail... as a COMPARISON to two little twerps asking a dumb, dickish question to a congressman walking from one place to another...

    Are you serious?
    It is a loaded question and "Agenda" is a vague basis (though both parties use it so no one can act high and mighty like they are in the right somehow)

    Well you see, the appropriate thing to do would be to A) Ask them to clarify (I agree that it is a loaded question, if you ask them to clarify though then you can whittle it down or turn it around on them and come out on top) B) Reply with a non-answer (any of the BS statements that politicians are masters at conjuring) or C) Keep on Walking

    The INAPPROPRIATE response to such as question is to commit assault. (Albeit the bare minimum of Assault, though it still is Assault)
    Last edited by Frozengale; 06-18-10 at 09:03 PM.

Page 44 of 45 FirstFirst ... 3442434445 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •