Giuliani: Not Impossible to stop Illegal Immigration
- Thread starter Damocles
- Start date
Damolcles - You clearly don't get it.
Talking Points Memo is not "A blog source giving Talking Points Memos for a specific position and party" any more than the Drudge Report is a report about drudgery, the New York Times about the time of day in Manhattan or the Washington Post a telephone pole in D.C.
Do a little research old-timer.
Which talking points have I defended?And yet you defend those on here who parrot right wing talking points. But that is just for the sake of discussion
I see you defending the talking points person, not myself. It seems that you can't look in a mirror.
uscitizen
Villified User
Well for one instance, you can seldom resist coming to Dano's aid . Although you are gettin better in that respect.
You are a good at remaining largely impartial, but you are far more partisan than you realize Damo....Most of us are.
Talking Points Memo clearly took it out of context and gave a one-sided view.
You can keep repeating this, but there is a reason when I specifically asked for a link that you didn't provide it, it is because you knew your source to be questionable and one-sided.
Research yourself.
As I said the AP article even gave an amazing account of my opinion in it, right in the article. There is a reason you didn't link to that as well, it is because you knew that an article with more context would make it clear that the remarks were not quite as you presented them.
You clearly took an actual talking points memo from a blogspot (One that is ironically named "Talking Points Memo" as well) but the article you presented was clearly a partisan hack piece that took quotes out of context, did not provide all of their original context purposefully.
You knew it would be pointed out if you posted the link and only did when it was asked for a second time with a caveat.
I would be embarrassed too. But attempting an unsubstantiated ad hominem is not proving your point.
uscitizen
Villified User
Naah not clueless, just partisan, and can't help it.
Coming to his aid? And which talking points has he presented? You are seriously off-base here.
At least you admit it.
No, you finally admitted to your partisanship, and willingness to defend the position of somebody with an equal partisanship to yours. I like a person who can admit to such a thing after so many years of pretense of "non-partisan" positions. And endlessly repeating, "I am registered republican so I'm not partisan!", Gettin to ya Damo ? That is ok, it does not bother me, Ype I admit to fighting some partisanship every day. But I am gettin better.
Personally, I have made no pretense to being anything other than a republican who more often than not votes republican. However, if Dano posted something from a story that clearly took crap out of context I would point it out. I have before, and will in the future.
uscitizen
Villified User
HUH ? You might want to check back over my posts Damo. I think both parties suck and admit that I will vote for the demoncrat becuase the Republicans just scare me the worst. Being broke is better than WW3.
Ohhh I am defending DH ? Well in this case I think he is right.
I think you are often right, but just a bit too "right" to be fully correct
LOL. This has been a fun exchange...HUH ? You might want to check back over my posts Damo. I think both parties suck and admit that I will vote for the demoncrat becuase the Republicans just scare me the worst. Being broke is better than WW3.
Ohhh I am defending DH ? Well in this case I think he is right.
I think you are often right, but just a bit too "right" to be fully correct
I think that he "forgot" to link on a site right after a post because he knew the source to be partisan. It is an opinion, that you think he is "right" is simply rejected...
I prefer his AP source that he finally found after a long, long search, but it tended to support my opinion that a less partisan source would give a different view and put it more in context.
You're clueless. Plain and simple.
1) I already provided you the justification for linking to TPM: they reported it first. The AP followed. Moreover, they gave the full context of the quote, the video of Giuliani's statement and compared it to his campaign advertisements and speeches, something the AP story did not do.
2) The AP article uncritically reported the Giuliani campaign's spin. If that's amazing it's only because it reaffirms your partisan hackery. Nice job!
3) It's not a talking points memo. Get that through your thick head. Maybe my sarcasm was a bit too light for you. TPM is not what you think it is. You're obtuseness in the face of your blind ingnorance is less than flattering.
4) TPM didn't take anything out of context. It's not as if they twisted Giuliani's statement to make it appear as though he said something he did not mean. His statement was clear and unequivocal. In 1996 he state is no uncertain terms that immigration could not be totally controlled. TPM merely reported that and provided video of him saying that and then comapred it to his campagin ads and campaign statements that were completely 180 degrees in opposition to his former opinion. I know you don't see it often but that is called reporting. Further, TPM contacted the Giuliani campaign for comment and did not receive a response.
5) I'm not embarrassed to provide links to TPM. They are one of the better sources of information on the web. The only problem is with out of touch people like yourself. Fact are facts regardless of who reports them.
Except I hadn't read anything from Giuliani on his "spin".
I do not find the remarks to be mutually exclusive. Saying "we can't totally control it" while stating we can do something about it are not opposites.
If you weren't embarrassed, why 'conveniently' forget the link when I has specifically asked for a link? I think you are backpedalling, are embarrassed, wish you had provided the link originally although it likely would have wound up with the same response from me without the joking "So they are all leftwing blogspots"... posts in between.
The article from TPM left out context, and other information. They "reported it first" because they were seeking a partisan position.
It's okay, truth is truth. He did say those remarks. However when seeking more information I find that he has always stated that we can do something about it, just that we would not be able to "totally control" it. I agree. On both accounts.
While it is true I saw TPM and thought that it was specifically a talking point, but then read more of that site. This particular article is an editorial with a specific opinion that left out much information that I got later from other sources. Pretending that the article isn't partisan and yet you conveniently "forgot" a link when specifically asked for one is pretense.
I understand your embarrassment and need to attempt to "defend" the action. Next time, just give a link man.
Don't pull a doniston and just give quotes and no links then expect others to do your research for you. Especially when it specifically began with a request for a link.
I never claimed to forget to link. I simply posted the quotation with out the link. If I really wanted to hide the source I could have. The fact of the matter is that there is nothing to be embarrassed about.
By the way, the AP source is the third link after TPM when you google the first chunk of the Giuliani quote. It really didn't take much to find it. See:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=We%27re+never%2C+ever+going+to+be+able+to+totally+control+immigration&btnG=Search
Hence the remark that google is your friend.
Last edited:
Except Giuliani didn't say he "can do something about it." He said, matter-of-factly, that he will end illegal immigration where as previously he said we could never control immigration.
And again you 'forget' to add the qualifier. "Totally". Then you act as if he made those remarks in vacuum, as if there weren't more covered at the time and place that they took those remarks and put them to video.
Two statements.
1. We can never control immigration.
or
2. We can never totally control immigration.
They have very large and different meanings. One implies we can do something about it, but never "totally" control it. The other implies that we can never even do anything at all about it.
Forgetting the "totally" specifically changes the meaning and context of the statement.
1. We can never control immigration.
or
2. We can never totally control immigration.
They have very large and different meanings. One implies we can do something about it, but never "totally" control it. The other implies that we can never even do anything at all about it.
Forgetting the "totally" specifically changes the meaning and context of the statement.
I'd add that, yes TPM is a left-wing Democrat supporting site and they bring that to the table in their reporting. However, reporting what a candidate has said in the past, in context, and comparing it to what he is saying in advertisements and on the campaign trail is not dishonest, particularly when the campaign is contacted for comment.
I'm still baffled by what specific context was left out? Giuliani's explanation that next day as to why his statements were not contradictory?
I'm still baffled by what specific context was left out? Giuliani's explanation that next day as to why his statements were not contradictory?