Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Call the OP out on being disingenuous? Yes. I can't believe that wouldn't be a given, since I'm outright asking her (several times now) why she would criticize MSM so frequently, yet suddenly post as if she trusts this particular source.
But what you said here...
The photo published by the LA Times came from the White house.
BTW, here is another unflattering photo from the White house that shows 0bama leaving his dear friend in the dust, forcing the racist, bigot of a cop, to help an old feeble man with a cane down the stairs.
Start your own thread about legitimate sources of news and why the Left/Right use them.
This thread is about the LATimes comparison of two presidents in pictures - comparing how the troops are treated and how they react.
I mean, we see this kind of personal attack from the Left when they get their panties in a bunch about an article, picture, poll they don't like. If you don't like it, don't post, don't open the thread, but really, stop trying to make it all about me.
I posted the piece from the LATimes - obviously they have a point for putting it up. If you don't like the point...too bad.
I've answered you more than once - if you don't like the answer....you know the drill.
.
Let's cut to the chase. The only reason the LATimes printed those side-by-side photos was in a failed attempt to make Obama look bad. The only reason the OP posted a link to those photos was in a failed attempt to make Obama look bad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wapasha
The photo published by the LA Times came from the White house.
Yes, and the LATimes didn't print any text with the photo about Obama's trip over there. Instead, they filled the space with Bush's photo. I would think we can all agree is old news so what was the point other than a failed attempt to degrade the president. Why not print some quotes from Obama's speech or other details about the trip?
I'm not interested in generalizations or taking a poll; I wanted to know your feelings on it since you brought the subject up, you started and continued the thread, and you obviously put this on the table for discussion. So this is discussion. The legitimacy of a news source is a legitimate part of a discussion like this. Whether or not the poster believes what he or she has posted is a legitimate part of a discussion like this, too.
As for "personal attacks," I don't see them. If you're concerned, contact the mods and see whether these are personal attacks--merely asking questions, and repeating them when no answer is given.
See, YOU don't get to dictate the discussion in a thread that is not your own. Obviously, the LATimees piece speaks for itself and that is the topic of thread - the difference in style and troop reaction to 2 presidents - very simple, try and stay on topic. Really, if you don't like the comparison, I understand.
Another point, NO ONE is required to answer your irrelevant to the topic of the thread questions.
The photo published by the LA Times came from the White house.
By both White Houses - Bush and obama.
I always remembered Bush in the thick of troops, touching, hugging, close to them.
Quote:
Let's cut to the chase. The only reason the LATimes printed those side-by-side photos was in a failed attempt to make Obama look bad. The only reason the OP posted a link to those photos was in a failed attempt to make Obama look bad.
Obviously, if the pictures didn't make him look bad, as compared to Bush, the leftists on this thread wouldn't be in such an uproar over tangential minutia (like making it all about me, once again).
Yes, and the LATimes didn't print any text with the photo about Obama's trip over there. Instead, they filled the space with Bush I would think we can all agree is old news.
Let's cut to the chase. The only reason the LATimes printed those side-by-side photos was in a failed attempt to make Obama look bad. The only reason the OP posted a link to those photos was in a failed attempt to make Obama look bad.
And this is the bottom line, and points to the belief on my part, and on some other posters' part(s...I guess? Ugh, grammar), that rather than this being proof of one president being "better" than another, it's just two photos thrown together...and yes, that IS a legitimate part of this discussion, as far as I can see.
Other posters disagree and feel the two photos are a good indication of which president is (was) "better" than the other.
This is called having a discussion. My questions were legitimate and so is motivation when one posts a thread; questioning that is legitimate too. That's done here all the time (i.e.: "S/he is just a leftist who wants everyone to believe his/her 'messiah' is a good person and that's why s/he posted such-and-such").
See, YOU don't get to dictate the discussion in a thread that is not your own.
Obviously I don't. Which is why I asked. Not dictated. Yes, you had a right not to answer. The polite thing would have been to say, "I refuse to answer." Politeness isn't an absolute requirement, though; I understand that. Such a response also would have been an answer, at least of sorts, long before this. It was your right to play around with wording rather than answer. And it was then my right to ask again and/or to rephrase.
I nowhere dictated anything in this thread. In any event, since you won't/can't answer, I will make an assumption. My assumption is that you did post this as a dig at Obama even though you have previously decried such news sources as being total baloney. I am making the assumption just as a note to myself and because I haven't gotten an answer. And that's that, I guess.
Yes, and the LATimes didn't print any text with the photo about Obama's trip over there.
They did.
Quote:
President Obama made his first trip as chief executive to Afghanistan over the weekend to, among other things, visit troops close to Kabul. He spoke to them at Bagram Airfield and we had the full text right here.
The White House released this picture by official White House photographer Pete Souza, showing the president shaking hands and grabbing a soldier's finger, and the troops' reactions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerZ
Obviously I don't. Which is why I asked. Not dictated. Yes, you had a right not to answer. The polite thing would have been to say, "I refuse to answer." Politeness isn't an absolute requirement, though; I understand that. Such a response also would have been an answer, at least of sorts, long before this. It was your right to play around with wording rather than answer. And it was then my right to ask again and/or to rephrase.
I nowhere dictated anything in this thread. In any event, since you won't/can't answer, I will make an assumption. My assumption is that you did post this as a dig at Obama even though you have previously decried such news sources as being total baloney. I am making the assumption just as a note to myself and because I haven't gotten an answer. And that's that, I guess.
I did indeed answer your question, many times. Go back and read.
Btw, I have cited links from the LATimes on numerous occasions.
Are you saying the White house is not a credible source? That is where the photo came from.
Even a disreputable news paper can be viewed as credible at times, especially when all they do is post a photograph supplied by the White house.
All right, there now, see? THAT'S an actual answer. And it was so quick and short and...easy. Of course, it's Wapasha's personal answer...but at least it's "an" answer...and it makes total sense. Anyone can understand it, because it's genuine, it's to the point and there's no shuffling around the issue. Thank you for this answer on your part, Wapasha.
As for me not saying the White House is not a credible source: oh, I definitely never said that, any more than I've ever said that MSM has a leftist agenda, can't be trusted, is skewed, etc., etc. What I did say is that comparing the two pictures (which the White House did not do...that was the news source itself) as some sort of proof of whether one president is superior to another, doesn't make any sense at all to me. And then I backed it up by providing plenty of examples. That's about all I can do; the point has been made.
Let's cut to the chase. The only reason the LATimes printed those side-by-side photos was in a failed attempt to make Obama look bad. The only reason the OP posted a link to those photos was in a failed attempt to make Obama look bad.
Yes, and the LATimes didn't print any text with the photo about Obama's trip over there. Instead, they filled the space with Bush's photo. I would think we can all agree is old news so what was the point other than a failed attempt to degrade the president. Why not print some quotes from Obama's speech or other details about the trip?
Take that up with the LA Times. Once in a while, especially on the internet, newspapers will publish a single photo from a presidential trip, just as a follow up to a previous story. Seems like the White House did not provide any text to go along with the photos? Are you suggesting that if the LA Times did not get a background story along with the photos, they should make up a story?
Edit: Both photos were supplied by White house photographers. You are assuming that the photos came on different days, and the LA Times decided to lump them together and not include any detailed background story, all on purpose?
Last edited by Wapasha; 03-31-2010 at 03:36 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not dictated. Yes, you had a right not to answer. The polite thing would have been to say, "I refuse to answer." Politeness isn't an absolute requirement, though; I understand that. Such a response also would have been an answer, at least of sorts, long before this. It was your right to play around with wording rather than answer. And it was then my right to ask again and/or to rephrase. 