How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 Cavuto vs. Gibbs
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Cavuto vs. Gibbs

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


0 posted 05-08-2010 12:38 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Check out the Cavuto video at this link:
http://www.thehopeforamerica.com/play.php?id=3913

My question is, why the deliberate lie by Gibbs about the statement of Michael Brown? It is so easily debunked. Does the administration just assume that people will believe whatever they say without checking it out?
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


1 posted 05-08-2010 02:06 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


quote:
Does the administration just assume that people will believe whatever they say without checking it out?


Hopefully not.

Brown suggested in that interview that Obama and the administration let the leak continue for political gain, an amazingly inane and stupid claim in itís own right that Cavuto should have pulled him up on but Brown never actually accused the Administration of causing the leak.

He was wrong on that point.

.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


2 posted 05-08-2010 02:35 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Followup: Gibbs clarifies his remarks and response by Cavuto:
http://video.foxnews.com/v/4182257/gibbs-clarifies-remarks
Tim
Senior Member
since 06-08-99
Posts 1801


3 posted 05-08-2010 04:44 PM       View Profile for Tim   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Tim

It doesn't matter what someone on Fox or for that matter, what any non-progressive says, it is what they think.  And progressives know full well what non-liberals are thinking as they are intellectually and morally superior.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


4 posted 05-08-2010 05:39 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

That would explain it, Tim! Thanks!
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


5 posted 05-08-2010 05:43 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Does the administration just assume that people will believe whatever they say without checking it out?

Of course they do. They count on it.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


6 posted 05-09-2010 04:38 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     Thank you, Mr, Grinch.  A telling point.  This is indeed what happens when drilling is allowed by Companies that have the sort of record that BP has, and that make the sort of promises that BP did.  President Obama was foolish to allow the drilling in the first place, even if it did show up the drilling for the ill considered idea that it actually is.  This is not one of the President's finest hours, and I think that he is fortunate indeed to get away with as little egg showing on his face as there is:  On the face of the continent is something else indeed.

     Mr. Gibbs comment was not about Mr. Brown's text, but about the implications of that text.  If you check the verb that Mr. Gibbs used, you will see this is so.  Fox became quite indignant about Mr. Gibbs not quoting Mr. Brown correcting and was upset that Mr. Brown had not actually used those words.

     Mr. Gibb, if you actually listen to the text, never attributed those words to Mr. Brown, only that Mr. Brown had implied the spill was being played for political advantage by The President.  Indeed, if the President did not at least make a serious attempt to turn the spill to good political use, I put it to you that he would have been unworthy of the office as an incompetent politician.

     I believe that the problem was in allowing the drilling in the first place.  Here I believe the President was being simply too accommodating to the over-confident and overreachingly greedy oil companies, whose thirst for profits exceeded their willingness to supply enough protection for the environment.  It may be great business, but it falls very short on humanity.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


7 posted 05-09-2010 07:33 AM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

No, Bob, Gibbs said that Brown implied that the administration had caused the leak, and he said it more than once.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


8 posted 05-09-2010 10:36 AM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch

quote:
President Obama was foolish to allow the drilling in the first place

I donít think he had much choice Bob, I may be wrong, but I believe the licence to drill was issued legally by the previous administration.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


9 posted 05-10-2010 01:17 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     An implication is it?  Gibbs said that Brown actually implied such a thing?  Is it at all possible that from the syntax of Mr. Brown's comments such an inference might be drawn?

     You do understand that Gibbs was talking about implication and inference, don't you?  And that implication and inference do not appear on paper?

     No, you don't, do you?  Otherwise you wouldn't be trying to display pieces of tape.  Nor would you believe what Mr. Cavuto was trying to say because you would realize that he was flim-flamming you into a snipe-hunt.  Happy dining!
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


10 posted 05-10-2010 01:42 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

What the heck are you talking about Bob?!
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


11 posted 05-10-2010 06:39 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     That would be the difference between statement and implication, Denise.  

You said:

quote:

No, Bob, Gibbs said that Brown implied that the administration had caused the leak, and he said it more than once.



     No matter how many times Mr. Cavuto is going to replay that interview, an implication is not something that can be quoted.  It is something that resides between the lines.

     It doesn't matter how many times Mr. Gibbs said that Mr. Brown implied something.  You cannot disprove the existence of an implication that way.  You may pick up on an implication or you may miss an implication; it resides between the lines, like transcendence in a religious service.  You can't point to the text and say, "There it is, let's replay that so everybody may take note."

     Mr. Cavuto, by making the text of the interview available is doing nothing to prove his point.  He gives the text of the service, but perforce must omit the transcendence.  He may quote the text of the interview, but has to omit the implication because you either get it or you don't.

     Ergo, by publishing the interview, he sends you on a snipe hunt.  He sends you after something you cannot verify, and you cannot disprove.  He does nobody any favors.  He supplies a red herring.  He makes fools of those who think he makes sense, because an implication is an abstraction that is not readily captured and which reasonable people may differ.  He sends his viewers on a snipe hunt.

     He may do this because he hasn't thought the thing through himself or because he expects his viewers not to think the thing through.  

     Perhaps he has some chain of reasoning that makes the whole thing eminently reasonable, and is not foolish at all.  If so, I confess I cannot find it.  It appears to me that he is trying to makes fools of his viewers and of those his viewers present his conclusions to, and I find feeling being treated that way galling.  And I don't like the way he's trying to deal with my friends.  

     Perhaps he is kind to animals.  Many people have that as a redeeming social value.

     That is what the heck I am talking about.

     I personally had a lot of trouble figuring out what Mr. Brown was talking about at all because his conversation seemed to do a fair amount of rambling, and I couldn't figure out if he blamed President Obama for allowing the Drilling to go forward or for not restraining it, or for not pushing for more of it.

     Since BP clearly does not have the ability to provide reasonable safety for this sort of rig, I am at a loss to understand why Brown would have any useful criticism to make at all, unless he were to say that The President shouldn't have permitted any drilling at all.  Considering that The Republicans and some foolish Democrats have been quite literally saying, "Drill, Baby, Drill" since the last Presidential election, I find it difficult to believe that he's anything but in favor of more drilling right now.  Ecological and economic disasters are apparently not very important to the man or the party, otherwise we'd see some concrete plans for a fix and for legislation to prevent this sort of thing from happening again.

     Perhaps I've missed this rush to make things right from The Radical Right in their haste to Blame the President.

     I do, by the way.

     I think he shouldn't have been quite such a pushover for the drilling to begin, but I do confess I'm unsure what he might have done to stop the push, the bipartisan push, from the right.  Once again, I find myself drawn to quoting John Irving, whose wisdom seems more and more apt at times like this.

     "Garp."  
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


12 posted 05-10-2010 06:58 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

And all you are talking about is not on point, Bob.

Gibbs said that Brown intimated that the administration caused something, when in fact what Brown did intimate, as can be seen on the tape, was  that the administration allowed something to continue to gain political advantage. I see a distinction between those two words, don't you? That's all that Cavuto was pointing out.
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> Cavuto vs. Gibbs Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors