What if you were giving an award but weren't allowed to attend?

spike said:
Actually no, I hardly ever resort to insults unless someone else starts it.
Click to expand...
That's about the funniest thing I've read in a while.

I'm not blindly following anyone or acting like he can do no wrong. I'm simply pointing out the dubious nature of the article. (which it turns out was pretty misleading huh?)
Click to expand...
Read your posts since election season. Why would anyone possibly think you're not a mouthpiece for Obama after reading your posts?

This makes you arguably the biggest liar among OTC members and shows a desperation to make this personal because your argument in this thread didn't turn out so well. It's a diversion that I'm not falling for. Just man up and admit you were wrong.
Click to expand...
In typical spike fashion, you take a sentence I've typed, change one or two words and then try to act as though you've totally pwned me in an argument. The unfortunate part for you, though, is that you didn't. The fact still remains that the Los Angeles Times is responsible for anything posted on an latimes.com blog, Time Magazine is responsible for what is posted on a time.com blog, and so on. As such, an editor on the payroll of each of those publications has to OK what goes onto those blogs and there is a level of fact-checking expected from something that a major publication is responsible for.

That's means I was not wrong.
 
spike said:
it's pretty difficult to try and use an opinion piece from Little Gree Footballs as proof of something.
Click to expand...
The fact that the piece linked to the list of NNPA papers doesn't matter, I guess.



That's what I just did.
Click to expand...
So what's the problem?

Hey look what happens when someone posts a piece the cons don't agree with.
Click to expand...
"Ooh! Ooh! They did it! That makes it OK!"

I'm not sure why they don't pass this info along to Peel and Cerise. Any ideas?
Click to expand...
When have I ever associated myself with jimpeel and cerise? My history with both those two hasn't been particularly friendly.
 
Inkara1 said:
That's about the funniest thing I've read in a while.
Click to expand...

Sometimes things are funny because they're true.

Read your posts since election season. Why would anyone possibly think you're not a mouthpiece for Obama after reading your posts?
Click to expand...

I thought he was the best candidate because I support most of his positions.


The fact still remains that the Los Angeles Times is responsible for anything posted on an latimes.com blog, Time Magazine is responsible for what is posted on a time.com blog, and so on. As such, an editor on the payroll of each of those publications has to OK what goes onto those blogs and there is a level of fact-checking expected from something that a major publication is responsible for.
Click to expand...

And opinions are not facts. Also the opinion of the author of these blogs is not to be assumed to be the newspapers opinion. Often opinion pieces and blogs are biased and misleading. Which certainly turned out to be the case here.

That's means I was not wrong.
Click to expand...

"it wouldn't be allowed to be posted if the facts used in the article to back up the author's opinion are suspect"

Fact from OP: The Obama White House has closed the press award ceremony to the press

Fact from Time: that exclusive access was granted to the NPPA, a 67-year-old federation of more than 200 black community newspapers

One of those facts is suspect and yet it was allowed to be posted. Turns out you were wrong.
 
Inkara1 said:
The fact that the piece linked to the list of NNPA papers doesn't matter, I guess.
Click to expand...

Not so much, it's a clearly biased opinion piece.

So what's the problem?
Click to expand...

No problem, I'm just going to go ahead and point out that it's another biased opinion piece.


"Ooh! Ooh! They did it! That makes it OK!"
Click to expand...

It is OK because they were right.

"We try to avoid opinion sites & use standard media for information...things that can be verified by more than one source."

That is spot on and should be true. it's just that peel and cerise aren't following that standard.

When have I ever associated myself with jimpeel and cerise?
Click to expand...

I was referring to your defense of their biased opinion pieces.
 
Inkara1 said:
Because obviously the facts used in said opinion pieces as backup become invalid once used in an opinion piece.

It doesn't seem like it would be that hard to read the "opinion piece" and get your own differing opinion from it, instead of requiring a clean slate to be able to form your own opinion without reading someone else's opinion. I know I'm fully capable of reading an opinion piece, deciding the author is full of crap, and coming up with my own opinion based on what the author wrote within said opinion piece.
Click to expand...

I have been saying that for some time now to no avail. He only sees the source; and at the point it is one that is unacceptable to him the facts stated become all lies. He doesn't take any time to at least Google the facts and see what other sources, even those he finds acceptable to him, have to say about those facts.

Facts are only facts if the right people are stating them; but they become fallacies when the wrong people state them.

Blog @ latimes.com is invalid but blog @ time.com is totally credible.

He counters with his own source, in this case time.com, which shows that Obama's racist tendencies are still in play; because Whites need not apply. Only Black newspapers will report on the event.

By the way. Anyone read anything on what happened/was said/occurred at this event? Seems no one is writing much.
 
jimpeel said:
I have been saying that for some time now to no avail. He only sees the source; and at the point it is one that is unacceptable to him the facts stated become all lies.
Click to expand...

No Jim, pay attention for once. You post biased crap opinion articles constantly as if it's the only thing you read. Biased opinion articles often distort the facts.

Why couldn't you find an actual factual news article on this subject?

Pay attention to what some of the other members said on the subject too.

"We try to avoid opinion sites & use standard media for information...things that can be verified by more than one source.

If the site is suspect, then all that site posts is suspect. Call it guilt by association."


He doesn't take any time to at least Google the facts and see what other sources, even those he finds acceptable to him, have to say about those facts.
Click to expand...

That is a blatant lie. I often show your biased crap for exactly what it is.

Facts are only facts if the right people are stating them; but they become fallacies when the wrong people state them.
Click to expand...

Facts are facts....opinion pieces are opinion pieces.

Blog @ latimes.com is invalid but blog @ time.com is totally credible.
Click to expand...

No, both are just blogs. One is not any more credible than the other. For every opinion piece you post I could counter with someone who has a different opinion. It's useless. Better to stick to real news.

He counters with his own source, in this case time.com, which shows that Obama's racist tendencies are still in play; because Whites need not apply. Only Black newspapers will report on the event.
Click to expand...

Nothing racist about it. He chose this group for an exclusive just like he chose Jay Leno (a white man) for an exclusive last week. Quit whining about nothing.
 
spike said:
Nothing racist about it. He chose this group for an exclusive just like he chose Jay Leno (a white man) for an exclusive last week. Quit whining about nothing.
Click to expand...


An exclusive what?


It wasn't an interview with the NNPA. It was a photo-op for some worshipers to have their picture taken with the recipient of "Doofus of the Year."

It wasn't an interview with Leno. It was a campaign stop. He went on the Tonight Show to boost his sagging ratings.
 
The Tonight Show is an entertainment comedy fluff t.v. show.

O'Dumbo is laughable.

Franks and beans.
 
spike said:
Nothing racist about it. He chose this group for an exclusive just like he chose Jay Leno (a white man) for an exclusive last week. Quit whining about nothing.
Click to expand...

If Bush had gotten an award from a bunch of White newspapers and he closed the proceedings to all but White newspapers you would call him a racist even if he went on Montell Williams the day before.

Your problem is that you believe that Blacks cannot be racist. Only Whites can be racist. The exclusion of any person or entity due to nothing more than race, color, or ethnicity is racism.
 
He is receiving an award from these black papers? Then it can be exclusive coverage, it's not like he is signing a bill into law, and only the AP gets to report on it.

Question;

Is this the first time this has happened, in history, or is the article/blog hyping up what may be standard procedure?
 
jimpeel said:
If Bush had gotten an award from a bunch of White newspapers and he closed the proceedings to all but White newspapers you would call him a racist even if he went on Montell Williams the day before.

Your problem is that you believe that Blacks cannot be racist. Only Whites can be racist. The exclusion of any person or entity due to nothing more than race, color, or ethnicity is racism.
Click to expand...

You're making up shit again Jim. Why is that?

I believe that anyone can be racist.

If Bush gave some exclusive to some Irish American newspapers I wouldn't give a shit either.
 
spike said:
You're making up shit again Jim. Why is that?

I believe that anyone can be racist.

If Bush gave some exclusive to some Irish American newspapers I wouldn't give a shit either.
Click to expand...

The Irish are not a race. They are a nationality.

Know the difference.
 
I didn't call them a race.
Click to expand...

The subject is racism and you segued into speaking of nationalities.

I can call Californians a race but that does not make it so.

There are three -- COUNT 'EM -- three major races, Negroid, Caucasoid, and Mongoloid. There is the hotly debated Australoid but that is still to be determined; but we can assume for the purposes of this debate that Irish people are not Australoid.

So what race are the Irish people? Are they Black Africans (Negroid)? Are they Asian (Mongoloid)? Or are they just plain ol' White folks (Caucasoid)?

Well, guess what? They are Caucasoid.

A very good site on racial genetics HERE and it is not just opinion. Note the DNA graphs at the links.

Also note that there is no Irish race listed. See HERE.

Did you ever read this when I suggested it before?
Click to expand...

Yes. It was crap then and it is still crap now.
 
spike said:
Sometimes things are funny because they're true.
Click to expand...
They're also sometimes funny when they're false. Your point?


I thought he was the best candidate because I support most of his positions.
Click to expand...
Yet, whenever someone points out something he does wrong ("Special Olympics" joke come to mind? His little claim that the Model T got better gas mileage than a modern SUV even though it's not true? The fact that today's trillion-dollar bad loan rescue program is the first time Obama has said something about the economy without the stock market dropping?) all we get is "your guy was a colossal blunder" or other statements that simply blame Bush instead of admitting that your guy has plenty of shortcomings as well.



And opinions are not facts. Also the opinion of the author of these blogs is not to be assumed to be the newspapers opinion. Often opinion pieces and blogs are biased and misleading. Which certainly turned out to be the case here.
Click to expand...
Opinions are not facts, but opinion pieces in reputable publications use facts to support those opinions. Those facts would be listed in said opinion piece.


"it wouldn't be allowed to be posted if the facts used in the article to back up the author's opinion are suspect"

Fact from OP: The Obama White House has closed the press award ceremony to the press

Fact from Time: that exclusive access was granted to the NPPA, a 67-year-old federation of more than 200 black community newspapers

One of those facts is suspect and yet it was allowed to be posted. Turns out you were wrong.
Click to expand...
You again failed to mention that the original post at Time was in agreement with the post at the LA Times. It was changed later after something new came to light.

Initial news reports of the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995 pointed at Arab suspects, and it turned out it wasn't the Arabs. Damn those newspapers, printing such suspect facts so early in the case.
Details of the Jessica Lynch story changed as more information became available. Damn that Washington Post for printing such suspect facts... in news stories, no less.
Of course, we all remember the first news reports of Sept. 11 saying the first plane into a building was a plane crash, without saying it was a terrorist attack. That ended up changing. Damn those news outlets for giving us such suspect facts before what really happened became known.

Tell you what. Your request that I "man up" and "admit that I'm wrong" sounds fair. Next time I'm wrong, I'll admit it. Sound good to you?
 
Inkara1 said:
They're also sometimes funny when they're false. Your point?
Click to expand...

This one is true. You started the insults, I didn't. You were being childish.


Yet, whenever someone points out something he does wrong ("Special Olympics" joke come to mind? His little claim that the Model T got better gas mileage than a modern SUV even though it's not true? The fact that today's trillion-dollar bad loan rescue program is the first time Obama has said something about the economy without the stock market dropping?) all we get is "your guy was a colossal blunder"
Click to expand...

I don't recall commenting on any of those items. You are merely trying to make this personal to divert from the fact that you are wrong in this thread.

Opinions are not facts, but opinion pieces in reputable publications use facts to support those opinions. Those facts would be listed in said opinion piece.
Click to expand...

They are still biased opinion pieces and are often misleading and distort facts. As in the OP.

"We try to avoid opinion sites & use standard media for information...things that can be verified by more than one source."

You again failed to mention that the original post at Time was in agreement with the post at the LA Times. It was changed later after something new came to light.
Click to expand...

So you're saying two different major publications posted opinion blogs with suspect facts. That makes you wrong twice just on this one incident.


"it wouldn't be allowed to be posted if the facts used in the article to back up the author's opinion are suspect"

Thanks for proving yourself wrong twice over.

"it wouldn't be allowed to be posted if the facts used in the article to back up the author's opinion are suspect"
Damn those news outlets for giving us such suspect facts before what really happened became known.
Click to expand...

Holy crap more suspect facts? I thought you said that could never happen?

Tell you what. Your request that I "man up" and "admit that I'm wrong" sounds fair. Next time I'm wrong, I'll admit it. Sound good to you?
Click to expand...

You're wrong now. You even helped prove it yourself. So why wait to man up?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top