I had a feeling I was getting that wrong. Well, I hope he gets the point regardless of my illiteracy.
Although I doubt he would use it since I said the truth.
And, as I pointed out earlier, you’re refusing to continue with what he was saying. You take the first half of his comments, and delete the rest. To most people, that would be considered … misleading. Here is what he said: “I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse: I think it takes pressure off the Iraqis to arrive at the sort of political accommodation that every observer believes is the ultimate solution to the problems we face there.” Funny how having the entire quote there shows his belief that the solution to continued sectarian violence is having the Iraqis become more POLITICALLY involved in finding solutions.
Powerline? Ahh, I see now what I’m dealing with.
Let’s look AGAIN, at how you twist what he says. You say, he said that he couldn’t imagine the surege making a substantial difference on the situation on the ground." What he said, again if you quote the entire thing is: "We can send 15,000 more troops, 20,000 more troops, 30,000 more troops: I don’t know any expert on the region or any military officer that I’ve spoken to privately that believes that that is going to make a substantial difference on the situation on the ground.” Funny how that works.
You, powerline, hotair, and all the rest spewing this talking point confuse “worked”, “solutions”, and “victory” and pretending they are synonymous with “reduce violence”. And to do so, you have to chop up his quotes, ignore what he really says (I especially like the quote: “E]ven those who are supporting – but here’s the thing, Larry – even those who support the escalation have acknowledged that 20,000, 30,000, even 40,000 more troops placed temporarily in places like Baghdad are not going to make a long-term difference.” The lengths you guys will go to try and pretend Obama has flip flopped is sad.
No, I specifically said “Yes he said it would take pressure off the Iraqis to make a political solution.” Which was precisely what he continued to say.
Oh, I thought we grownups were talking. Powerline had the collection of quotes with references to where and when they were reported.
I remember personally Obama’s opposition to the surge at the time. I remember everyone calling it a “civil war” that we couldn’t address. You can continue to ignore part of his statement while saying that I’m ignoring another part. Whatever.
I also know that we just handed control over Anbar province back to the Iraqis, with our soldiers at the ceremony not in body armor, etc. Obama was wrong on the surge, plain and simple.
Maybe I’m being naive, but I don’t see the zinger there. “Unreal” is commonly used to mean “extraordinary” or “beyond belief.” Those may not be the standard dictionary definitions, but it’s how I understood it.
I am. You however, joined Powerline in misrepresenting the meanings of Obama’s words by cutting the quotes up and ignoring the words you didn’t like. I used examples to show you how dishonest that was.
So do I
Funny thing, memory. I remember his saying that Iraq’s problems couldn’t be solved ONLY by using more military. I remember that he said there had to be other, political, solutions too. Luckily, my memory is supported by his actual statements. Yours… not so much.
If you think any successes in Iraq are due solely to more military might by US troops, I think you’re severely mistaken. And if you think that it is a fair assessment to only look at the positives and ignore the costs, well, suffice it to say I think you’re wrong again.
Bump. Part 2 (aired September 8).
Okay, here’s something I’ll admit I don’t like about Obama: he lets himself be interrupted.
Many years ago I read an essay by Gore Vidal in which he imparted some valuable advice based on his years of TV debating. It sounds simple but it’s effective: the interviewer or any other person attempts to interrupt you, don’t let them. Don’t get confrontational, but just keep talking, just a tiny bit (almost imperceptibly) louder than before, acting as if the other person isn’t interrupting but is in fact hanging on your every word. If the listeners can’t understand you then at least they can’t understand the other guy either. If asked to repeat what you just said, don’t- just say “I just answered that”. I’ve used this in classes, staff meetings, arguments with family and many other times and while it may not stop the other person from interrupting, but it will drive them fucking nuts and tell them to “Screw yourself, I’m not letting you lead” without saying the words. Interruption is a form of bullying and this is your way of socking them in the nose.
Anyway, I’ll wait til others have seen the clip; it’s on “taxing the rich”.
I liked part 1 better. It seemed Obama let himself be bullied much easier in part 2. He didn’t come off as well either, mainly I believe because O’Reilly’s talking points had a much better ring to them, and any thorough explanation of an economic plan is going to take longer and be more difficult for the viewers to understand than a catch phrase like “tax the rich” or “Robin Hood”.
I hope Obama gets to be less defensive in the last parts.
Obama did let himself be interrupted a couple of times, but I thought he did OK overall. More than once, he said “That’s not true, Bill” or “Let me finish!” and proceeded to make his point.
It’s O’Reilly’s style to interrupt- personally, I would probably get frustrated and walk out on him! And his explanation that he had to “move it along” didn’t cut it- he does that to everyone.
Sampiro, I’ve used the “just keep talking” technique myself. What usually happens is the other person raises their voice when they realize their attempt to interrupt didn’t work, but I just keep going. And you’re right, it drives them nuts!
I support Obama, and intend to vote for him (I think he’s far preferable to McCain), but I don’t agree with all his positions. I think raising corporate taxes is generally ineffective. If a business’s costs go up, they just raise their prices, and the consumer ends up paying for it anyway.
Regarding Obama’s remark about it being neighborly to give more, to help out a waitress making minimum wage- giving to charities, or donating time to community projects is neighborly, but when income taxes are raised on certain brackets, it becomes involuntary, and smacks of wealth redistribution.
So I don’t agree with his position on taxes, but I agree with him on most other issues. Overall, I think Obama is handling himself pretty well, and I look forward to the next installment.
Tonight is when they’re supposed to get into all the stupid “associations” talk – Wright, Rezko, Ayers, etc. I don’t know what were going to find out that we didn’t already know, but I hope Obama didn’t let O’Reilly demaogogue that crap too much.
By the way, Bill O’Reill doesn’t do that interrupting thing to everybody. He didn’t do it to GWB. The GWB interview was a rimjob.
I watched the Monday night installment. I was kinda embarassed by the “interruptions” by O’Reilly.
He does that to a lot of people, but not all. He claims that he only had thirty minutes with Obama, and wanted to cover a lot of ground. He doesn’t have time to let anyone “bloviate”, or “spin” unchallenged. I sympathise with that attitude somewhat, but there is a fine line between “hurrying along” a conversation, and rudeness. Sometimes, O’Reilly stumbled over that line.
In the case of GWB, O’Reilly claims that, while GWB is President, he had to throttle himself back out of respect for the office. I don’t recall seeing whatever interviews he did with GWB in the 2000 campaign season, so I can’t contrast the interviews.
I assume that if Obama takes the White House, O’Reilly will throttle back for him, too.
Also, I assume that if O’Reilly thinks his guest is making a decent point (one that he may agree with), there would be lesser need for the interruption style. If you disagree with the speaker (and O’Reilly), you may see that as sucking up.
The reality is, every “news” reporter or commentator will have their own opinion, and those who disagree with that opinion will feel that the reporter/commentator was deliberately unfair or harsh, or not harsh enough, depending on the circumstances. But I don’t feel that it is “deliberate”, in O’Reilly’s case, with GWB, or (nor?) Obama.
I’m just thankful that somebody in the media is finally willing to ask Obama questions about Jeremiah Wright. That’s something he’s never spoken about after all.:rolleyes: (What the hell is there to know about Wright that hasn’t been beaten to death, dried, tanned, used to upholster a sofa, then the sofa taken out and beaten some more?)
Ahh, but it’ll take Papa Bear to get the TRUTH!
O’Reilly really came off like a mega-tool tonight. I think Obama handled him ok, but Billo sounded like a moron when he ended up trying to argue about whether some bill Obama wored on was dood or bad, and he sounded full of shit when he said “I don’t have associations like that.” The hell he doesn’t. He IS a radical association, for fuck’s sake. I’d trust my kids with Wright or Ayres a hell of a lot faster than I’d trust them with falafel boy.
Youtube of Tuesday night’s.
We learn that DailyKos is a powerful voice in media, but Sean Hannity is just a commentator. Or something.
I liked how in the discussion afterwards, O’Reilly kept repeating “but he’s on the far left” about Ayers, as though “far left” is synonomous with “child molester” (and as though O’Reilly himself is some kind of moderate).
What is Tammy Bruce’s deal, by the way? Who is she always so mad at? Didn’t she get fired from NOW for making racist comments? She’s got some kind of rage problem, but I can never tell what she’s so pissed about.
That kind of thinking could blow up in your face.
From what I’ve heard the odds of that are better with O’Reilly, if you know what I mean.
I’m having a hard time watching these. All I want to do is punch Bill O’Reilly in the face. Repeatedly.
My main problem with O’Rly is his twisted view that these far-left sites are somehow worse than stuff from the far right. The Daily Kos thing was the most laughable part. Obviously Obama is only tangentially familiar with the site or he could have explained to BillO the difference between “dailykos” and “a blogger at dailykos.” Next thing you know Bill will be calling out Cecil Adams for calling Sarah Palin a “dingbat housewife.”
That said, I think Obama handled himself pretty well. I’d love to see John McCain or Sarah Palin do as well on Olbermann.
Not posting, just subscribing.