No, you apparantly didn’t understand what newcomer was arguing or tried to rephrase his arguments to make them more reasonable and less idiotic.
You then of course made foolish comments about other people’s reading comprehension skills.
You are sidestepping my point again, and continuing your hyperbole.
No, I’m not. Newcomer made a preposterous statement.
Again. You were bringing an old beef to a new topic and your post was too hyperbolic without context. Newcomer’s posting history should not be prerequisite knowledge for reading your posts in this thread.
I wasn’t rephrasing newcomer’s argument. I was questioning your use of “extremely preposterous” as a descriptive of the very idea of government influencing media.
You can say “‘Duh’ is the obvious answer” all you want now, but it was not your original answer to me, and it was not what you implied in your posts that inspired my question.
What are you talking about? What “old beef”?
I responded that way because I was responding as if you had accurately represented what newcomer said rather than stupidly accusing me of claiming that governments don’t try and influence the media.
People generally don’t respond well to “when did you stop beating your wife” questions and once again I can’t help but marvel at how earlier on this thread you attacked others regarding their “reading comprehension”.
Whatever negative posting history you have with newcomer, that seemed to have inspired your hyperbolic replies to him (e.g., 911 conspiracies, etc.). Out of context in this thread, and continued for some reason in your replies to me.
Well of course! People don’t respond well to implications that they may have erred, even if they did so. Duh! 
Is “reading comprehension” a sore point for you for some reason? Any other past history I need to know in order to make sense of your posts?
Huh? Have you confused me with Finn?
Anyway, I’m not sure why you’re continuing with this argument since you’ve stopped even trying to pretend to defend Newcomer’s original post.
We’re way off-topic and if you want to continue this, I recommend bringing it to the pit.
John Kerry went to all 5 Sunday morning shows “selling” the war.
If you watched any of those, please name one non-journalist guest offering counter-view - let me clue you in: there was none.
While for average American this may be the norm when it comes to making a war, I… rest my case. In my book this counts as Government propaganda.
If you cannot tell the difference between the CIA directing CNN on exactly what to write, and “influence”, then trying to snark at people for “reading comprehension” just hoists you by your own petard. And of course his posting history on CT’s is relevant to him posting yet another CT.
Are you saying that he government shouldn’t be allowed to attempt to convince the public of anything?
I’d wager that the average reader can detect a difference between “Sunday morning shows” having a politician on, and your original claim, which is that the CIA controlls CNN and tells them what to publish. Evidently, except for when CNN publishes negative things about the CIA, and then we can assume that the Mossad was behind it. Of course.
What are you talking about? Meet the Press had Rand Paul on offering his opposing view.
I watched NBC, CBS and Fox today and they all had members of Congress offering opposing views.
Your beef with newcomer is what was off topic and should have been taken to the pit. If you insist, I will dredge up and post your reply to me that contained the references. Is it necessary? Once again, you choose to ignore what I’ve said, and attack your own straw: My point was asking you to clarify if it was “extremely preposterous” to suspect the CIA of influencing the media. You asked him to “explain his reasoning”, not provide a cite for the specific instance. That is the post of yours I cited when I asked for clarification. In future, if you choose to reply to me, please cite where I say the things you attribute to me.
Cite where this nonsense you are alleging occurred. Note the post I initially replied to, and how it was worded. Or can you not tell the difference between “explain your reasoning” and “prove this particular thing happened”?
What “beef” are you talking about?
And you’ve chosen to ignore what newcomer actually said.
Why am I not surprised that you are now claiming that the posts in this thread, which anybody can verify, which are past the edit window, and which contain your own words, are an “allegation”?
Yet again, this was Newcomer’s claim. You then, demonstrating your superior reading comprehension (of course, of course) tried to argue that the issue was whether or not governments ever influence the media. Ibn assumed you comprehended the discussion and responded to you as if you weren’t pulling a bait and switch, and continued on as if you actually understood what Newcomer was saying. You then acted, and are continuing to act, as if your inability to comprehend Newcomer’s words is somehow a victory.
Were I you, I’d probably refrain from your snark about “Or can you not tell the difference between…”
In fact the position of the USA and France re Syria have been very close for decades. Even though the current situation is completely new, it’s more of the same.
O Great Guru of Reading Comprehension, please explain how your vaunted and august powers of comprehending what you read have made you think that when Ibn said:
That it meant:
Surely your prodigious powers of comprehension can be used to explain to other people why, exactly, you created a strawman of Newcomer’s CT and used that strawman to challenge people who were denying that CNN takes orders from the CIA.
I would disagree with this statement. French foreign policy re Syria isn’t even remotely similar to its policy re its former African colonies. There’s zero feeling of responsibility and relationships between France and Syria have been essentially hostile for eons. There are some ties with Lebanon, on the other hand, but even in this case, there hasn’t been a post-colonial policy like in Africa.
Check your facts. French forces have been present in Afghanistan since the beginning of the military operations there in 2001 and only withdrew in January 2013.
Well, yes, at the moment that IS one of his job duties, attempting to “sell” intervention to the American public.
An immediate rebuttal is not required for fair and balanced reporting. The question to ask is if the contrary viewpoint is given a platform as well. I don’t know what country you’re in, newcomer, or what region, but in my area much of the reporting has been on the rest of the world not wanting to get involved, anti-intervention demonstrations in major US cities, and local sentiment running heavily against the war.
The government is allowed to make its case for a future course of action that will be voted on, as in this case. That is a valid part of democracy. Propaganda is more selling the course of action after it has been decided upon. Making the case before the vote, as Kerry is doing, is no guarantee that the Congress will rubber stamp Obama’s desires.
And if Congress votes against intervention and Obama goes ahead anyway I would support impeachment because that would be a violation of the will of the people as expressed by their elected representatives.