If he does, I hope he reads your posts, and has secret services track you down to pelt your house with eggs and set a skunk loose in your basement. Jesus Christ man, stop being so obnoxious!
Total BS. Perhaps in your circles you haven’t noticed the vile characterizations by those on the right? I have never seen him respond. He called her on the hypocrisy of her comments after the meeting vs. the description in her book.
Nope, I fully supported it with a dictionary definition and everything. Why don’t you explain how it wasn’t a conversation? So far no one has even tried to do that. All I’ve seen is declarations without supporting arguments that it wasn’t a conversation.
I saw people talking to each other; that’s a conversation.
It’s all he’s got, Švejk. It’s all he’s got.
Seriously? Wow.
I’m going to stop calling myself a Conservative, if this is how far down the barrel we have to scrape for something to criticize Obama about.
Talk about petty…
If you can’t fire enough synapses to be able to see the difference between two people talking—having a conversation—and a politician having questions thrown at her but the press, that’s just fucking sad. If you compound the problem by insisting they are they same, you’re your own worst enemy. Put down the shovel, genius.
Many of the democrats from up north (like my parents) only spend their winters there, because it’s truly hell on earth in the summer. They vote for more reasonable people in their home states by absentee ballot, but don’t have any influence in AZ even though they spend five months of the year there.
How does a politician being asked questions and answering them not fit the definition of the word conversation?
If it’s such a simple difference, surely it should be no challenge to articulate what that difference is.
How else would you end a press conference? Reporters don’t stop asking questions until the politician has actually left. That’s how it works. Seriously, Jan Brewer is a horrible person, but every politician walks away from questions at a press conference. It would still be rude to walk away from a conversation, if Obama did that. Apparently he didn’t.
He agreed to a private meeting with her once before, and she went on to trash him in her book with an account of the meeting that was probably bullshit. Then she had the balls to ask him for another meeting. How was he supposed to respond?
Actually, I’ll tell you–he was supposed to smile and nod while passing her off to an underling, who would begin the process of stalling her indefinitely. That’s probably what happens 95% of the time when someone asks the President for a meeting. It’s probably in rare and special cases that the underling just tells the person to go fuck herself.
She should consider it an honor that the President himself chose to tell her to go fuck herself.
She struck a victory for drunken, trashy yentas everywhere.
Next up: Obama mooned by Orly Taitz.
Say Jan Brewer at some point in the past was walking down the street and a man approached her and said “give me all your money,” and then JB ran away screaming “No!” Are you saying that she’d now be a hypocrite because she had previously walked away from a conversation?
The term “conversation” implies an exchange that is voluntary on the part of both participants and mutual in the sense of who’s asking and who’s telling (ie, both are doing both). Reporters accosting someone isn’t a conversation because it flunks both of those criteria.
And the linked video doesn’t show reporters accosting Gov. Brewer. She stopped for them, she accepted their first question, she answered it. That’s an exchange, and it was clearly voluntary. Thanks for agreeing that it was a conversation. Only when the reporters indicated that her answer was evasive and asked her the same question did she abruptly end the conversation by walking away.
And that’s one reason I called her a hypocrite. She’s shown that she will walk away from a conversation she doesn’t like, but when someone else does it she calls them names. If it’s okay for her to do to others, it’s okay for others to do to her.
If you want to argue that Pres. Obama didn’t walk away from the conversation, as the 2 other Arizona officials have said, that’s fine; that just (again) that she’s a liar.
Wow. I really believed this thread couldn’t get any dumber, but you are one impressive dark horse late entrant, is all I can say. Good show.
SB, you have reading comprehension problems. The reporter scene with JB fails the mutuality criteria for a conversation.
VT, SB’s definition of conversation would have captured that scenario, so I guess you agree that his definition is stupid.
Look, the larger point is that it’s not necessary to call someone a hypocrite using some strained argument just because you don’t like him. Just say you don’t like him, and I won’t embarrass you for making a terrible argument.
Okay, since this distinction seems to escape you. If Bob and I are having a conversation, we have both agreed to devote our time to it. He speaks, I listen, i speak, he listens. A crowd of reporters throwing questions at someone is not one-to-one, and certainly not a personal interaction. It’s a crowd on one side, shouting questions, demanding answers. Surely you don’t think crowds are people, do you? They are certainly less personal, there’s rarely a greeting on the part of both parties, a handshake, a hug, etc. The crowd lacks the personal element of talking to an individual. Make believe that every utterance from the crowd was shouted by one individual, do you really think 1) that wold happen and 2) if it did anyone would stick around or consider it a “conversation”. No. And we don’t afford crowds that same degree of personal interaction than we do individuals. Nope. You’re just being ridiculous here. You threw out some bullshit based on your hyper-partisan leanings and you’ve been called on it for going over the line on this claim. Give it up. Retract that aspect of your post. Stop digging for heaven’s sake. Sheesh.
A press conference is not a happening or a bit of street theater. Throngs of reporters do not just materialize and pepper people with questions.
No, a press conference is called by the elected official who informs the media “Governor So-and-So will be in the Press Room of the Executive Mansion on Wednesday at 10 AM to deliver remarks on such-and-such.”
So, the press is invited by the official who knows that questions will be asked (otherwise, they’d just send out a press release). They also know that not all of these questions will be softballs. The benefit is that the press is more likely to run a story that has been subjected to this kind of scrutiny, much more so than simply reciting the over-spun horseshit out of which press releases are made.
Thus it is simply a gross error to pretend that the governor was subjected to unfair surprise when she was asked an uncomfortable (but related to her official duties and statements and not unecessarily personal) question at a press conference.
So, every time the press confronts a politician it’s a press conference? Please. What, do you borrow Snowboarder Bo’s synapse? Aside from that, do you see really no difference between a conversation being held by two people and a crowd of press people. This is simply asinine. Give it up. This is just too stupid to even argue against. See ya.
Now give SB back his synapse. :rolleyes:
KG, it’s the mutualuity of the exchange while it is taking place that makes a conversation. The fact that a person my call a press conference doesn’t turn it into a conversation–it’s still a press conference.
I can see the headline of the NY Post already: TAITZ’ TAINT TAINTS VISIT!