• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Media has a large part of the blame for the discord in our country today

Hatuey said:
I find it to be bull**** given the publication's history. It's whining about a subject a few years too late and when it's fully guilty of it.

See: Show us the birth certificate! - National Review
Click to expand...

Now you're talking about the publication's "history." Thus far, you've provided a dubious interpretation of a single blog post (which you didn't even read in its entirety) in the 60-year history of the publication as your sole evidence, even in the face of the overt, plain editorial stance of the publication being exactly the opposite of what you claimed.

Let's see more, and specifics. Let's see the pattern and history you claim exists.
 
Harshaw said:
It's not a "birther fluff piece" because it unequivocally dismisses the birthers, who wanted evidence of the birth.
Click to expand...

It dismisses birthers by calling their demands reasonable?

Pretzel logic.
 
faithful_servant said:
Which was intentionally exacerbated by the Obama admin. They had the EXACT document being asked for all along and chose to withhold it for purely political reasons. They 100% admitted this publicly.
Click to expand...

Yes, we know - crazy conspiracy theories are made worse by the people not having them.

More pretzel logic from the completely sane.

Harshaw said:
No, dishonest posting on your part. That isn't what it called "reasonable," and you know this. [/QUOTE

Because I know you conveniently missed it the first time:

Harshaw said:
So far, you've posted a single article that you're not even right about. Let's see those further "pieces." You claim they exist, so let's see them.
Click to expand...

National Review, standing against birtherism, something already quoted to you:

Repeating a lie you know has already been debunked is pretty sad. Not sure who you think your audience is here.
Click to expand...

Repeating a lie? That the NR was leading the charge in demanding birther evidence?

Obama birth certificate controversy - Conservapedia


The Obama birth certificate controversy concerns the birth certificate and place of birth of President Barack Obama.[1] A 1991 publisher's biography used to promote the memoir Dreams From My Father states that Obama was born in Kenya.[2] This bio remained in place until April 2007.[3] During the 2008 presidential campaign, Sidney Blumenthal, an advisor to U.S. Senator Hillary Clinton, visited various media offices and asked them to investigate the Kenyan birth story.[4]

In response to an article published in National Review,[5] Obama's campaign released a low-resolution image of the candidate's short-form certificate on June 12, 2008. According to this certificate, Obama was born in Honolulu on August 4, 1961. As embossing and other security features are not visible in the image, it met with great skepticism. The skeptics soon developed into a "birther movement." Although a high-resolution image was released on August 21,[6] the movement remained active, demanding that Obama release his long-form certificate. The White House finally released this document on April 27, 2011.[7]
Click to expand...

This is a fact that most conservatives right wing sources acknowledge.
 
Last edited:
Hatuey said:
It dismisses birthers by calling their demands reasonable?

Pretzel logic.
Click to expand...

No, dishonest posting on your part. That isn't what it called "reasonable," and you know this. Or maybe you don't; you only tend to read to the point where you think you've gotten what you want and ignore everything else.

If you're right, you don't have to make **** up, but that's typically what you do.
 
Hatuey said:
National Review was pushing birther fluff pieces and calling their demands reasonable.
Click to expand...

So far, you've posted a single article that you're not even right about. Let's see those further "pieces." You claim they exist, so let's see them.

Your continued assertion that the NR stood against birtherism while having its writers tell everyone how reasonable they were is just more signs of your usual birther logic.
Click to expand...

National Review, standing against birtherism, something already quoted to you:

. . . President Obama was born on August 4, 1961, at 7:24 p.m, in Honolulu County, Hawaii, on the island of Oahu. The serial number on his birth certificate is 010641. Baby Barack’s birth was not heralded, as some of his partisans have suggested, by a star in the east, but it was heralded by the Honolulu Star, as well as the Honolulu Advertiser, each of which published birth announcements for young Mr. Obama.

Much foolishness has become attached to the question of President Obama’s place of birth, and a few misguided souls among the Right have indulged it. The myth that Barack Obama is ineligible to be president represents the hunt for a magic bullet that will make all the unpleasant complications of his election and presidency disappear.
Click to expand...

Repeating a lie you know has already been debunked is pretty sad. Not sure who you think your audience is here.
 
Hatuey said:
Needing to see a birth certificate for whatever reason that you never had in any previous election.
Click to expand...

Which was intentionally exacerbated by the Obama admin. They had the EXACT document being asked for all along and chose to withhold it for purely political reasons. They 100% admitted this publicly.
 
faithful_servant said:
Which was intentionally exacerbated by the Obama admin. They had the EXACT document being asked for all along and chose to withhold it for purely political reasons. They 100% admitted this publicly.
Click to expand...

Yes, we know - crazy conspiracy theories are made worse by the people not having them.

More pretzel logic from the completely sane.

Harshaw said:
No, dishonest posting on your part. That isn't what it called "reasonable," and you know this. [/QUOTE

Because I know you conveniently missed it the first time:

Harshaw said:
So far, you've posted a single article that you're not even right about. Let's see those further "pieces." You claim they exist, so let's see them.
Click to expand...

National Review, standing against birtherism, something already quoted to you:

Repeating a lie you know has already been debunked is pretty sad. Not sure who you think your audience is here.
Click to expand...

Repeating a lie? That the NR was leading the charge in demanding birther evidence?

Obama birth certificate controversy - Conservapedia


The Obama birth certificate controversy concerns the birth certificate and place of birth of President Barack Obama.[1] A 1991 publisher's biography used to promote the memoir Dreams From My Father states that Obama was born in Kenya.[2] This bio remained in place until April 2007.[3] During the 2008 presidential campaign, Sidney Blumenthal, an advisor to U.S. Senator Hillary Clinton, visited various media offices and asked them to investigate the Kenyan birth story.[4]

In response to an article published in National Review,[5] Obama's campaign released a low-resolution image of the candidate's short-form certificate on June 12, 2008. According to this certificate, Obama was born in Honolulu on August 4, 1961. As embossing and other security features are not visible in the image, it met with great skepticism. The skeptics soon developed into a "birther movement." Although a high-resolution image was released on August 21,[6] the movement remained active, demanding that Obama release his long-form certificate. The White House finally released this document on April 27, 2011.[7]
Click to expand...

This is a fact that most conservatives right wing sources acknowledge.
 
Hatuey said:
Yes, we know - crazy conspiracy theories are made worse by the people not having them.

More pretzel logic from the completely sane.



Repeating a lie? That the NR was leading the charge in demanding birther evidence?

Obama birth certificate controversy - Conservapedia




This is a fact that most conservatives right wing sources acknowledge.
Click to expand...

You didn't actually read the article they referenced, because it's just not something you do:

| National Review

This doesn't exactly fit your narrative. This isn't a demand for anything; it's a debunking of numerous anti-Obama rumors, an observation that stonewalling on the birth certificate question does Obama more harm than good.

It's not a long article. You could have read it before posting if you so chose. You just never seem to.

Keep shooting yourself in the foot. Perhaps you'd be better served researching to learn rather than going on breathless fishing expeditions to hurriedly back up what you recklessly assert. Of course, if you did that, the entertainment value of your participation in threads would drop tenfold.
 
holbritter said:
Yes, reporters trust their unnamed sources. But should readers?
Click to expand...

Unnamed sources are often some of the most trustworthy. They don't want to be named because they can afford to give uncomfortable truths when they know they're not on the record. Usually the named sources are happy to be named because they are attacking an opponent and their base will love them for it. The unnamed sources are people who can admit that there's something wrong internally.

If former Obama officials are going after Trump they wouldn't need to remain anonymous.

One of my favorite publications about current events, and one of the most read publications among people in and around Washington is "The Economist." The articles in the Economist almost never have by lines. I think it keeps the focus on the actual information being presented rather than the presenter. It prevents people who don't like it from attacking the partisan who wrote it, and it prevents the writers from using their piece to inflate their own ego. Their goal is purely to inform, and if you don't like what they're telling you then you're probably wrong.
 
Harshaw said:
You didn't actually read the article they referenced, because it's just not something you do
Click to expand...

Ignore that the article calls the demands of birthers reasonable, that it was the first publication to demand a birth certificate (all the way in 2008). Ignore that the first record of a publication asking for the birth certificate is the NR:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories

On June 9, 2008, Jim Geraghty of the conservative website National Review Online asked that Obama release his birth certificate.[36][37] Geraghty wrote that releasing his birth certificate could debunk several false rumors circulating on the Internet, namely: that his middle name was originally Muhammad rather than Hussein; that his mother had originally named him "Barry" rather than "Barack"; and that Barack Obama, Sr. was not his biological father, as well as the rumor that Barack Obama was not a natural-born citizen.[37][38][39]
Click to expand...

Again, leading the charge for birthers and their reasonable demands.
 
Hatuey said:
How is getting rid of NAFTA going? I hope better than cutting medicaid for millions of people. :lol:
Click to expand...

Medicare is a complicated issue for one party to figure out. Too bad they do not get any help. We have seen what one party can do to health care, it almost has to be better.
 
coldjoint said:
Medicare is a complicated issue for one party to figure out.
Click to expand...

I bet it took being president for Trump to figure that out.

Too bad they do not get any help. We have seen what one party can do to health care, it almost has to be better.
Click to expand...

Cut medicaid for anywhere near 5 million and see what happens.
 
Hatuey said:
I bet it took being president for Trump to figure that out.



Cut medicaid for anywhere near 5 million and see what happens.
Click to expand...

You think you might finally win an election?
 
coldjoint said:
You think you might finally win an election?
Click to expand...

Only as far as the will of the people goes. Everything else like the electoral college is a bit of a numbers game.
 
Hatuey said:
Ignore that the article calls the demands of birthers reasonable,
Click to expand...

This again? It isn't what it said, as already pointed out, and the context of it absolutely doesn't match this spin. Do you think repeating the same debunked thing over and over will make it true?

that it was the first publication to demand a birth certificate (all the way in 2008). Ignore that the first record of a publication asking for the birth certificate is the NR:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories

Again, leading the charge for birthers and their reasonable demands.
Click to expand...

It didn't "demand" anything; what you quoted from Wikipedia is exactly the same as I what I said in my previous post. So let me get this straight: you're trying to refute what I said by quoting someone else saying the same thing as I did? Really?

I'd say that you should stop digging when you hit rock bottom, but what fun would that be? Self-immolations are always great entertainment.
 
Hatuey said:
Only as far as the will of the people goes. Everything else like the electoral college is a bit of a numbers game.
Click to expand...

But your number did not come up. And how is the record going for knowing what the will of the people is? Last time I checked the Democrats had no idea.
 
coldjoint said:
But your number did not come up. And how is the record going for knowing what the will of the people is? Last time I checked the Democrats had no idea.
Click to expand...

65 million people voted against your policies, you should be concerned about what that means for actually getting things passed. :)
 
MrWonka said:
Unnamed sources are often some of the most trustworthy. They don't want to be named because they can afford to give uncomfortable truths when they know they're not on the record. Usually the named sources are happy to be named because they are attacking an opponent and their base will love them for it. The unnamed sources are people who can admit that there's something wrong internally.

If former Obama officials are going after Trump they wouldn't need to remain anonymous.

One of my favorite publications about current events, and one of the most read publications among people in and around Washington is "The Economist." The articles in the Economist almost never have by lines. I think it keeps the focus on the actual information being presented rather than the presenter. It prevents people who don't like it from attacking the partisan who wrote it, and it prevents the writers from using their piece to inflate their own ego. Their goal is purely to inform, and if you don't like what they're telling you then you're probably wrong.
Click to expand...

I'll have to check it out. Does it have a lean to it?
 
Hatuey said:
65 million people voted against your policies, you should be concerned about what that means for actually getting things passed. :)
Click to expand...

So, how's the weather by you? Beautiful day by me.
 
Hatuey said:
65 million people voted against your policies, you should be concerned about what that means for actually getting things passed. :)
Click to expand...

You should think about destroying the country for political gain, that is what you are doing.
 
holbritter said:
Yes, reporters trust their unnamed sources. But should readers?
Click to expand...
The craziest part in this whole twisted tale for me is how unlike the past most "reporters" aren’t even talking or vetting these people in person or otherwise but communicating in some digital one-step form with god knows who in a age where forgery, espionage, political maneuvering and hoaxing is easier than ever and the ability to verify severity crippled.

Oy, to be in the dying throws of industry claiming to be for truth while reading twitter and calling their analysis of the feeds news….
 
holbritter said:
I'll have to check it out. Does it have a lean to it?
Click to expand...

Nobody is without bias, but they tend to be more even-handed than most. They do better than many, many others at maintaining a clear wall between opinion and news.
 
Harshaw said:
Nobody is without bias, but they tend to be more even-handed than most. They do better than many, many others at maintaining a clear wall between opinion and news.
Click to expand...

FAUX News has displayed the most unprecedented bias in US history. No doubt about it.
 
Media_Truth said:
FAUX News has displayed the most unprecedented bias in US history. No doubt about it.
Click to expand...

Great. Your favorite obsession doesn't have a thing to do with anything in this thread, anywhere, to say nothing of the post you replied to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom