(11-08-2018, 05:37 PM)Benton Wrote: In threads such as these what folks actually say has very little bearing. Folks have chosen a side and will do whatever is required to support their stance to include making false assumptions.
Give it a few days; there will be another incident where someone escalated a verbal altercation to a physical one and those saying it is justified this go around will assert it was not justified that time and those saying it is not justified in this scenario will say it is.
(11-08-2018, 07:22 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It's amazing what issues become partisan in this forum. Anyone can watch the video and see the intern was directed to take the mic from him. She tired twice by simply reaching out for the mic, both times Acosta did not give it up willingly. So the 3rd time she attempts to take the mic from him and he deflects her arm (karate chop may be too severe).
You can further see after Acosta "puts her in her place". She simply kneels down. It's not like she came flying out of the audience and grabbed the mic, dude knew exactly why she was there and chose to escalate the situation.
(11-08-2018, 08:25 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I did notice you didn't answer the 2 simple questions posed; just trotted out the terms false equivalency and cognitive dissonance.
So let's try is again and maybe you can help me further understand those impressive terms:
Did you have other options besides standing for the Anthem?
We're you forced to do so?
I explained why I stopped that discussion. No point in derailing when it is a false equivalency and thus irrelevant.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
(11-08-2018, 05:27 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Difference here being the intern would've been Lewandowski. Acosta and the intern had incidental contact almost simultaneously. This is why it's even more of a nothing issue than that was.
Yea, Lewandowski grabbed a reporter who was walking side by side with Trump asking questions and pushed her aside. Certainly not worth pressing charges, but he engaged with her and restrained her.
In this case, the intern is the one trying to engage by reaching at the mic in Acosta's hand multiple times before the incidental contact occurs. Immediately once it occurs, he pulls his hand in to his chest, preventing any further contact and says "excuse me". If someone is moving their arm around and you reach under it to grab at something they're holding, you might accidentally get your arm bumped.
It seems ridiculous that we have to approach this either as "he was the aggressor" or "he is a saint". As you said, Acosta should have yielded to a fellow reporter after his first line of questioning ended, but he was not at fault for any contact that occurred.
(11-08-2018, 08:32 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I explained why I stopped that discussion. No point in derailing when it is a false equivalency and thus irrelevant.
I didn't expect an earnest answer. Simply to continue to hide behind jargon.
There is nothing inconsistent in the scenarios (what you call false equivalency). So let me pull the tooth that is too hard for you to extract on your own:
You felt compelled to stand (insert forced) because of expectations. You had other options such as sitting, going to the concession stand, going to the bathroom, ect...But in your mind you felt you were forced to stand.
This intern was trying to do her job (much more severe than your social outing) and she was tasked with stopping Acosta from continuing to filibuster. She reached for the mic twice and he refused to surrender it, so she grabbed the mic and he brushed away her arm. She felt she had to remove him from the mic.
(11-08-2018, 09:21 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You felt compelled to stand (insert forced) because of expectations. You had other options such as sitting, going to the concession stand, going to the bathroom, ect...But in your mind you felt you were forced to stand.
This intern was trying to do her job (much more severe than your social outing) and she was tasked with stopping Acosta from continuing to filibuster. She reached for the mic twice and he refused to surrender it, so she grabbed the mic and he brushed away her arm. She felt she had to remove him from the mic.
She was only expected to try and get the mic. She was not expected to initiate physical contact. She could have fulfilled her obligation by just continuing to ask for or reach for the mic.
What if she had shot Acosta. Would you argue that she was "forced" to go that far?
(11-08-2018, 09:42 PM)fredtoast Wrote: She was only expected to try and get the mic. She was not expected to initiate physical contact. She could have fulfilled her obligation by just continuing to ask for or reach for the mic.
What if she had shot Acosta. Would you argue that she was "forced" to go that far?
(11-08-2018, 09:37 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Matt chooses not to answer 2 simple questions because he doesn't want the truth to be known "pretense".
Matt has explained why he refuses to answer. The level of expectations to stand for an anthem are not the same as the expectations to use physical force. They are not the same. It is a false equivalency.
There is not "pretense" to his answer, just logic. Too bad you can't see the difference.
(11-08-2018, 09:46 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Matt has explained why he refuses to answer. The level of expectations to stand for an anthem are not the same as the expectations to use physical force. They are not the same. It is a false equivalency.
There is not "pretense" to his answer, just logic. Too bad you can't see the difference.
But it has to do with what each person felt compelled to do in the situation. It is not inconsistent (what you guys call false equivalence)
I have 0 idea what false equivalence has to do with answering 2 simple questions.
"bfine the Steelers just beat the Ravens, do you think they'll beat the Panthers?"
" I refuse to answer because it's a false equivalency".
Any thought I had that Matt may have a point was erased when you joined the cause.
(11-08-2018, 09:47 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You consider this an "earnest" comment?
What does it even mean?
It means that regardless how intelligent one thinks themselves, when they say something silly, the become silly.
Comparing this lady grabbing the mic after she had asked for it a couple times to shooting him is a.........wait for it...........it's coming to me.........here it comes..........false equivalency!!
Of course she wouldn't shoot him. Once Acosta put her in her place she simply knelled before him
(11-08-2018, 06:05 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Well Acosta is a well known repeat offender in being a very confrontational individual. This is just merely another example, do we really need to wait for him to actually hurt an intern? I say we remove him for everyone's safety.
You guys are killing me in your defense of Acosta!
I think almost everyone said he should have stopped and given up the mic.
All of the "defending" has been again partisans trying to make it look like he Ike Turnered the intern while she wept quietly.
But remember the POTUS strives for confrontation so he can act tough.
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
(11-08-2018, 09:42 PM)Benton Wrote: Thankfully, no one working for the white house knows how to just turn a mic off. Otherwise,we wouldn't have the latest great partisan debate.
Hahaha, I was wondering that to, just mute the SOB til the mic is out of his hands.
(11-08-2018, 10:22 PM)GMDino Wrote: I think almost everyone said he should have stopped and given up the mic.
All of the "defending" has been again partisans trying to make it look like he Ike Turnered the intern while she wept quietly.
But remember the POTUS strives for confrontation so he can act tough.
Oh I know that, but Jim isn't making the news about the Presser, he's making it all about him, and that's not what Journalism is about.
His Questions? They are more like accusations and then he makes a statement and wants to lure Trump into a Debate. Seriously, every time he's involved, I have no idea what the Original point of the Presser was supposed to be about. Just ends up being Jim this, Trump that. Jim banned, They denying me my freedom of speech. He's not being denied anything except his presence is no longer allowed in the WH, he's free to write about anything he wants, CNN is free to send someone else in his place. Jim's just butt hurt.
I remember watching Obama's pressers, they went on and on and on and on for like 10+ minutes with out a single interruption.
I get it, many don't like Trump, but please do respect his Position of Authority. Jim looks like a big baby for the way he's acting, and he thinks he's getting points against Trump, but all the rest of us see it for what it is.
(11-09-2018, 01:00 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Hahaha, I was wondering that to, just mute the SOB til the mic is out of his hands.
Oh I know that, but Jim isn't making the news about the Presser, he's making it all about him, and that's not what Journalism is about.
His Questions? They are more like accusations and then he makes a statement and wants to lure Trump into a Debate. Seriously, every time he's involved, I have no idea what the Original point of the Presser was supposed to be about. Just ends up being Jim this, Trump that. Jim banned, They denying me my freedom of speech. He's not being denied anything except his presence is no longer allowed in the WH, he's free to write about anything he wants, CNN is free to send someone else in his place. Jim's just butt hurt.
I remember watching Obama's pressers, they went on and on and on and on for like 10+ minutes with out a single interruption.
I get it, many don't like Trump, but please do respect his Position of Authority. Jim looks like a big baby for the way he's acting, and he thinks he's getting points against Trump, but all the rest of us see it for what it is.
Maybe because Obama was well spoken (usually) and answered questions more regularly?
Trump loves confrontation...hates being accused of being wrong...and has set up "the media" as a successful (gets applause at rallies) foil.
Frankly the only reason he even has these is to get on camera. And if can make the media "look bad" that's just a bonus for him in his mind.
I'm more concerned that the WH sanctioned a doctored video to justify their pulling the press pass. They just didn't have the cajones to do it so they lied.
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
I mean he could have just said the reporter was a rude, horrible person who asked an awful question. But instead he calmly explained why the question was loaded and answered it anyway.
Now I know some who has lived a life like Trump, full of never having to face consequences, would not have the patience, or vocabulary to answer that way. But many felt Trump would suddenly act "more Presidential" once he was elected...and that hasn't happened either.
Something interesting from the link above:
Quote:"We are in an era of incivility," said Andra Gillespie, an associate professor of political science at Emory University in Atlanta. "There's been an erosion of respect for government officials post Watergate."
That erosion of respect also extends to the media.
"Part of the reason journalists have a bad reputation is that we're seen as rude and pushy, but in general you probably don't interrupt your mom if she's talking and you probably don't interrupt the president," said Jerry Ceppos, dean of the Manship School of Mass Communication at Louisiana State University.
Obama has faced his fair share of heckling.
In 2009, South Carolina Republican Rep. Joe Wilson yelled "you lie" during the State of the Union address. The resulting controversy resulted in Wilson being formally taken to task by the House of Representatives. The lawmaker later offered the president an apology.
Earlier this year, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer was seen wagging her finger at Obama while on a Phoenix airport tarmac during his visit there.
Last year, Wisconsin Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner said first lady Michelle Obama "has a large posterior," a comment critics called racist and sexist. He, too, offered an apology.
Also in 2011, Colorado Rep. Doug Lamborn apologized for comments he made on a radio program; he used the word "tar baby" to refer to the administration's policies.
Then there were all those derogatory and racially tinged signs at tea party rallies during summer 2010.
Six years ago we were having the same conversation...nothing changes except the party in control.
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
![[Image: ulVdgX6.jpg]](http://i.imgur.com/ulVdgX6.jpg)
![[Image: bfine-guns2.png]](https://i.ibb.co/YBkDQJV/bfine-guns2.png)
![[Image: giphy.gif]](https://media0.giphy.com/media/1kwsTjL8BNqlszNtnCE/giphy.gif)
But instead he calmly explained why the question was loaded and answered it anyway.