»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
Cavuto vs. Gibbs
| The Alley |
|
Cavuto vs. Gibbs |
|
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648
|
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? |
||
| © Copyright 2010 Denise - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: 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 it’s 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 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Followup: Gibbs clarifies his remarks and response by Cavuto: http://video.foxnews.com/v/4182257/gibbs-clarifies-remarks |
||
|
Tim Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794 |
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 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
That would explain it, Tim! Thanks!  |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
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 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
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 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
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 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: I don’t 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 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
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 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
What the heck are you talking about Bob?! |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
That would be the difference between statement and implication, Denise. You said: quote: 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 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
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. |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
