By Plastic Media, I am referring to all media outlets that pay the living shat out of their "reporters" to spew mews that is deemed worthy of us plebeians.
Man, the Plastic Media does not care who it hurts, just as long as it's profits soar.
999 times out of 1000 I would have been angry at that woman for talking like that in front of her kids. Here, at this moment, I could not imagine her thoughts and opinions. I have absolutely been without. Days without food. But nothing like having two little ones to take care of also while the inner struggle is happening out in the open. My thoughts go out to her, those children, and all affected. I do hope that life comes back for them.
Edit:
The story that I read just before this is, "Media Questions Whether Trump is in Texas "too soon""? Nothing gets by these quacks.
Personally, I cannot recall another President flying into the storm?
[This message has been edited by Tony Kania (edited 08-29-2017).]
Limbaugh said it right today. If Trump went the liberals are going to complain, if he didnt they would still complain, if he didnt do it exactly as they think he should, they would still complain. There is no action at all he could take that they would like. His best bet is to ignore the liberals or tell them to go get f...ked. They would still complain if Trump personally wrote a check for $25,000 to every victim.
Originally posted by rogergarrison: Limbaugh said it right today. If Trump went the liberals are going to complain, if he didnt they would still complain, if he didnt do it exactly as they think he should, they would still complain. There is no action at all he could take that they would like. His best bet is to ignore the liberals or tell them to go get f...ked. They would still complain if Trump personally wrote a check for $25,000 to every victim.
I agree that whatever it is that Trump will (or already has) said or actually done is subject to very exact "parsings" and "interpretations" by the center-left cable television news anchors on MSNBC and CNN, and their parsings and interpretations (I think this is generally understood) are repeated over and over on these TV shows in a way that often makes the objectivity of these news anchors and their guests ("talking heads") seem suspect.
It was the same way when Fox News reported about President Obama. The first example that comes to my mind is the so-called "Apology Tour", which was how Fox News shows tended to characterize President Obama's remarks on foreign soil. One occasion when Obama visited Europe, in particular. That was just right-of-center baloney. I looked at that "Apology Tour" reporting rather closely when it happened, and to me, it was all baloney. Neither Obama's tone nor his substance during these remarks and speeches on foreign soil were apologetic in any way that I understand "apologetic".
That's one example; I could expand on this with other examples. It would be better for me if I didn't.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 08-29-2017).]
Maybe it was Romney who coined the phrase "Apology Tour", after one of Obama's speeches on foreign soil. My recollection is that the Fox News anchors--Sean Hannity, most of all--used that phrase over and over again. That's the way that I remember it.
Forensic science, of course, cautions us about overestimating the accuracy of our recollections.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 08-29-2017).]
"center-left news anchors on CNN and MSNBC".......
Seriously? Center-left?
Yeah, right......
No... left.
You ever catch any of MSNBC's Steve Kornacki ? I think he in particular, among the regular MSNBC personalities, is always trying to keep his balance between left and right. Or better said: always trying to maintain his consistency in distinguishing between what is fact and what is only conjecture.
Who are the big boppers on Fox News these days? Sean Hannity? Tucker Carlson? I can't stand either of them anymore. It wasn't always that way, though. I used to watch me some Fox News. Some Bill O'Reilly. I think I lost my taste for Fox News sometime during Obama's second term--just to put it within a time frame.
I find myself at odds--bigly at odds--with the constant references to "left" and "right" on this forum. In the political context. And in the way that bleeds over into social and cultural contexts. It compresses the complexities of the real world into a one-dimensional description that is often, if not entirely without any substance. I look to existentialism for insight, over and above ideology. As I posted online some years ago, in another discussion forum:
xistentialism is not a philosophy, but a mood embracing a number of disparate philosophies; the differences among them are more basic than the temper which unites them. This temper can be described as a reaction against the static, the abstract, the purely rational, the merely irrational, in favor of the dynamic and concrete, personal involvement and engagement, action, choice and commitment, the distinction between authentic and inauthentic existence, and the actual situation of the existential subject as the starting point of thought. Beyond this the so-called existentialists divide according to their views on such matters as phenomenological analysis, the existential subject, the intersubjective relation between selves, religion, and the implications of existentialism for psychotherapy ...
Insofar as one can define existentialism, it is a movement from the abstract and the general to the particular and the concrete ...
Forensic science, of course, cautions us about overestimating the accuracy of our recollections.
No Ronald.
That would be Psychology.
Forensic science is concerned with the collection of scientific evidence. It has little to no use for someone's personal feelings, memories or opinions. It is a science that deals in verifiable facts.
Once again you have offered us a demonstration that you cannot discern opinion from fact or those who deal in either one.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 08-29-2017).]
I thought the comment or the phrase "apology tour" came from Mitt Romney, not Fox News. He might have said it on Fox, but that was Romney.
As I remember it, Obuma was apologizing to whoever he was speaking to in whatever country, for just about anything the US did ever in the past. Im surprised that he didnt tell everyone the US started WWII. Didnt take anyones interpretation to hear what came straight out of his mouth.
[This message has been edited by rogergarrison (edited 08-30-2017).]
As I remember it, Obuma was apologizing to whoever he was speaking to in whatever country, for just about anything the US did ever in the past. Im surprised that he didnt tell everyone the US started WWII. Didnt take anyones interpretation to hear what came straight out of his mouth.
My memory is good. I watched the speeches, and was disgusted at #44's view of America's past. His 'apology tour' was aptly named, no matter who gets credit for the name.
I agree that whatever it is that Trump will (or already has) said or actually done is subject to very exact "parsings" and "interpretations" by the center-left cable television news anchors on MSNBC and CNN, and their parsings and interpretations (I think this is generally understood) are repeated over and over on these TV shows in a way that often makes the objectivity of these news anchors and their guests ("talking heads") seem suspect.
It was the same way when Fox News reported about President Obama. The first example that comes to my mind is the so-called "Apology Tour", which was how Fox News shows tended to characterize President Obama's remarks on foreign soil. One occasion when Obama visited Europe, in particular. That was just right-of-center baloney. I looked at that "Apology Tour" reporting rather closely when it happened, and to me, it was all baloney. Neither Obama's tone nor his substance during these remarks and speeches on foreign soil were apologetic in any way that I understand "apologetic".
That's one example; I could expand on this with other examples. It would be better for me if I didn't.
So, rinselberg responds to rinselberg. I am inspired by words that go all the way back to the last century before the birth of the Christian savior, when Rome was still a republic and not yet an empire. "Lucullus dines with Lucullus." But this is not a dinner, or even a lunch. It's a response.
I have a link to a column from the Los Angeles Times of April 3, 2009. I will provide this link when I come to the end here, and that will be very shortly.
It is the full text of President Obama's speech at the Strasbourg Town Hall in Germany, and the questions that were put to him, and his responses to those questions.
This, I believe, is the event that was seized upon by some of Obama's most ardent critics and derided as Obama's "apology tour." This, more than any other occasion when Obama was in front of a microphone, was ridiculed as the apology tour by Fox News's Sean Hannity, and by many another pundit. And perhaps by Mitt Romney, who (according to Wichita here) first used that phrase.
Now I know this is not directly part of the CNN coverage of the Harvey disaster, but it seemed (to me) like it has relevance, when you look at how I framed it when I made it part of my response to this discussion.
I am not going to refresh my memory by going through this column that was in the LA Times. I know that when I read all the way through Obama's words on that occasion, I did not perceive anything that he said as "apologetic."
Now, the link. And a question. If anyone wants to play this or game this out, then what was it in Obama's remarks on this occasion that was apologetic? What were his exact words that were apologetic? The obvious play here is to zero in on the exact words (sentences, paragraphs) from Obama that were apologetic and copy that text from the LA Times and paste it here, as part of this discussion.
More than anyone else, the left likes to prod the right. Even rinselberg could not resist a few prods, and when he did not get the response, he prods again.
Sad face due to the ongoing war the left desire. Often times that in which you seek is not something you can handle.
Originally posted by Rickady88GT: Not everyone on FOX is an anchor. That is like saying everyone in the White House is a President.
A good point.
I am always aware of the difference between Fox News (or CNN; etc.) program anchors, and the outside people that come onto these programs and become part of the broadcasts. The anchors work full-time for Fox News or CNN. Not the guests, unless they are identified as such. The guests that have regular or almost daily appearances on these shows are compensated for their appearances, but are more like consultants than full-time employees.
As a daily guest here on the Pennock's "show" myself, I would like to say that there is always a tension between saying everything that is relevant, vs keeping it brief.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 09-01-2017).]
Nothing gets by these quacks. 
xistentialism is not a philosophy, but a mood embracing a number of disparate philosophies; the differences among them are more basic than the temper which unites them. This temper can be described as a reaction against the static, the abstract, the purely rational, the merely irrational, in favor of the dynamic and concrete, personal involvement and engagement, action, choice and commitment, the distinction between authentic and inauthentic existence, and the actual situation of the existential subject as the starting point of thought. Beyond this the so-called existentialists divide according to their views on such matters as phenomenological analysis, the existential subject, the intersubjective relation between selves, religion, and the implications of existentialism for psychotherapy ...
