I guess I’ll have to hope for a more serious response from Sherrerd. I’m not optimistic.
My response was totally serious. And so was Sherrerd’s. I’m not sure how it could have been misinterpreted.
There is only one purpose behind a moon hoaxer thread. It’s to take one tiny thing, rip it out of context, and use the falsified statement to prove that the other side has been wrong, and probably lying, all along. IOW, “‘OMG THIS PROVES IT. ALL SCIENTISTS HATE THE TRUTH. ADMIT IT YOU LOSERS WE CAUGHT YOU’…”
Taking a badly stated truth out of context, even though the explanation was right there in the original statement, and trying to make the altered quote a common sentiment among a given group, is exactly what moon hoaxers and other conspiracy theorists do. The analogy is powerful. Everyone here has politely explained to you why the answer to your OP was “no.” You failed to acknowledge them and merely continued to pursue the original condemnation. So the answer to the question you asked in post #157 is, seriously, “all of them.”
If you keep asking questions to which you know the answer in expectation of somehow exposing the liberals who hate America, we’ll keep treating your threads like we do moon hoaxer threads, by calmly explaining how reality works and showing that your posts do not reflect that. Or, sometimes, by putting how you are coming across in all caps. We did land on the moon. Liberals do not hate America. Simple stuff. Your posts have as much chance of refuting one as they do of the other.
The idea of being a liberal progressive is to always be moving forward (ie. Progress). Traditionally, liberals are people who want change, while conservatives, depending on how extreme the conservatism is, either want very little change (eg. “Stay the Course”), or romanticise the past, and actually want to move backwards. In other words, the mantra of the liberal is “We can do better”, while the matra of the right is “We are doing great right now”, and the far far right is “We did great yesterday”. That’s basically the very definition of being a Reactionary (ie. being on the far right).
Where I stand, being a liberal is that when people say “We are great right now” it means we have given up on ever being better. Stop doing that and get on with the business of actually improving people’s lives who still need improving (ie. those who have been left behind – mostly the poor, minorities). Things are NOT great, not fair, and we ought to do better. Complacency is a horrible thing, and claiming victory (by claiming greatness) is akin to kicking people (those who have been left behind with regards to the so-called promise of America) when they are down.
Stop claiming victory before the race is over, and actually work on winning. THAT’S the idea and goal of liberalism, at least how I see it.
You appear to be confused. Sherrerd hasn’t yet responded to my question in post #157. And your response “all of them” isn’t responsive to the question “Which post(s) …”.
What “altered quote”? Once again, I provided a link to the video right in the OP. The headline those fake-news fuckers at CNN chose was “Gov. Cuomo: America was never that great”. Did they “rip it out of context, and use the falsified statement”?
First off, the answer was not a universal “no”. Here are some examples:
Does that sound like a “no” to you? It didn’t come across that way to me. What about this one:
That’s definitely not a “no”.
Here’s another member of “everyone here” that’s not saying “no”:
And secondly, I did acknowledge them:
You are wrong, both about what “everyone here” said, and about my acknowledgement. Agreed?
I don’t think that’s a legitimate excuse. I asked you before: If you said “I never said ‘I like Nazis’”, and I quoted you as saying “I like Nazis”, but linked to your post, does that excuse the way I misrepresented your quote?
Your question seems off-topic here, but I’ll answer it anyways, with the hope that you’ll answer one for me: No.
And now for my question: Cuomo didn’t say the “I never said” part, did he?
OK, well that’s what you did with Cuomo’s quote. I’m glad you recognize it was wrong.
I don’t understand what you’re asking.
Define “best”. If you mean the richest, probably, but keep in mind that about 3% of the population controls over 90% of the wealth.
If you mean peaceful, then you must be joking.
Perhaps the Bill of Rights is the “gold standard”, but how well do we actually live up to the ideals we preach? THAT is what counts the most.
No it’s not what I did with Cuomo’s quote. Cuomo did not say “I never said America was never that great” or anything even remotely like that. So I (and CNN) did not manipulate his quote in a fashion similar to your hypothetical. Do you understand that now?
My perspective is: Your initial post showed a phrase (not even a full sentence) cut out of the center of a quote. The words you selected did not accurately represent the quote when considered in context. And then you excused your misrepresentation by saying that you linked to the full quote.
Oh, I see what you’re saying. No, I don’t think Cuomo said “I never said I like Nazis”. That was simply an analogy.
Do you understand why I might object when you gave an analogy that includes a hypothetical “I never said …” (which Cuomo didn’t say) and then said “that’s what you did with Cuomo’s quote”?
You’re certainly entitled to your perspective, but I wonder how much of it is driven by partisanship. Here’s the CNN description of the video (which I linked to in the OP):
Do you think they were being significantly more fair to Cuomo than I was?
What you did with Cuomo’s quote was misrepresent it, which was what the analogy was designed to illuminate, which I think it did.
I see below you’re bringing in irrelevancies about CNN. Here’s another analogy for you: I don’t get to grab a woman by the pussy and then say “but Trump did it too” when the police arrive.
I think it was a bad analogy because it included a hypothetical phrase (“I never said”) which wasn’t anything like what Cuomo said.
I don’t think it’s irrelevant when I presented a quote similar to how a major left-leaning media outlet did, and lefty partisans here on the Dope want to jump down my throat about it but give CNN a pass.
Oh, you poor dear! Need a moment?
CNN didn’t post their misrepresentation to this board. You did.
And if you don’t like my analogy then substitute your own, so long as it involves:
[ul]
[li]misrepresenting what someone said [/li][li]by cherrypicking a phrase from a middle of a longer quote[/li][li]that robs of it context and changes the meaning[/li][li]then claiming you did nothing wrong because you linked to the original quote[/li][/ul]
Yes. You left out the context and the remarks that followed. CNN quoted the full comments that you so carefully edited out.
And even now, you made sure that what you considered significant was in large type and bolded to make sure it overwhelmed the context.
Not on the page with the video, which was my source.
I did my best to mimick the size and appearance of the headline CNN chose here. I’d invite our dear readers to compare both. I suppose you could quibble that I should’ve used size 4 or 6 or picked a different font, but on the CNN page I linked to in the OP and this page, the headline (which CNN apparently considered significant too) “was in large type and bolded”.
If one considers that each statement relies on a different set of criteria for what constitutes “greatness,” then there’s no need for anyone to shoehorn the statement into a box labeled “synonymous.”