Giuliani: Not Impossible to stop Illegal Immigration
- Thread starter Damocles
- Start date
Again, I have shown how one word taken out of a report can change the meaning and impact of the statement. When reality shows he said we couldn't totally control illegal immigration (I agree), and did not say we could not control it at all, yet the article pretends that he did say we could never control it at all it is taking it out of context and working to change the meaning of the original statement.
It is clearly spin to actually report the statement puposefully out of context like that.
I don't disagree that they are left wingers. Just as I would avoid using rightwingblogspot as my sole sourcing for information when linking on this site, I would also avoid using leftwingblogspot as a source.
And both are directly contradictory to his contention that he can end illegal immigration.
Try to stay on point.
Are you nuts? The article has a verbatim quotation and a goddamned video of exactly what he said, including the "totally." The article doesn't pretend anything. It directly compares direct, verbatim quotations from Giuliani and gives you a video of what he said while linking to an advertisement and AP article that they are comparing the video to.
You haven't shown a god-damned thing except how thick-headed you are.
Get real man.
I'd also add that the TPM as a source is perfectly legitimate. You are just too old to understand that.
Last edited:
I am staying on point. I don't think he means that we can end it "totally". I do not think the statements are contrary. He says that we could do something about it, I agree with that, we could.
He earlier said that we could never totally control it, I also agree with that.
But consistently pretends that he qualifier doesn't exist and because of that pretense continuously gives the impression that he made a remark that he didn't.
It also assumes the remarks were taken in a vacuum, provides a video where only those remarks from a much longer video are taken and gives no other information of what he has said at other times.
I am not nuts, the article takes remarks out of context, tries to place them in vacuum, and "forgets" the qualifying portions of the statement reflecting an opinion that doesn't address or even suggest that the qualifier existed at all.
So, yes, the article takes the remarks, presents them in what they believe to be the worst possible light, then tries to get you to "see" them as they do. I expect people writing opinion pieces to do that. But not for others to not see it when they do. Especially ones that have been posting for years on a site like this one.
I don't give a rats ass what you think he means when he says "We can end illegal immigration . . ." It's not ambiguous at all. End means end. Totally is implied in the definition of end. When something ends it is over. Completely. Totally.
I'll send him an e-mail and get him to add a qualifier. Oh wait, he did, in later statements giving more information, but again you pretend all statements must be taken as if they are in vacuum, that one can never add to a position with more information. Or an added context be made to an original statement when later questioned.
I totally disagree with your approach here.
TPM's biased editorial quotes Giuliani thusly:
The "amazing" AP article quotes Giuliani thusly:
And Damocles concludes that the AP did an amazing job whereas TPM takes remarks out of context, tries to place them in vacuum, and "forgets" the qualifying portions of the statement reflecting an opinion that doesn't address or even suggest that the qualifier existed at all" and tries to pain the remarks in the "worst light possible."
The mind reels.
The "amazing" AP article quotes Giuliani thusly:
And Damocles concludes that the AP did an amazing job whereas TPM takes remarks out of context, tries to place them in vacuum, and "forgets" the qualifying portions of the statement reflecting an opinion that doesn't address or even suggest that the qualifier existed at all" and tries to pain the remarks in the "worst light possible."
The mind reels.
Where is the qualified statement?
TPM has a quote from him in South Carolina saying the exact same thing: that he can end illegal immigration. No qualifier. he has repeatedly claim to be able to end illegal immigration, not control, not lessen, but end.
Damn those taps shoes must be hot today Damo.
I said they "amazingly" did a better job. You are doing the same thing and taking my meaning out of context.
They at least don't pretend that the qualifier of "totally" didn't exist. As I said, I agree with him we will never be able to "totally" control illegal immigration. That statement implies that we can control it at least somewhat. We can do something about it.
The mind reels at how somebody can find such a meaning by taking even my own statements out of context.
He later says that the two statements were not inconsistent with his original position. He says that we can do something about it. He gives a more in depth answer that you conveniently ignore.
I too have to go. I'm sure we'll get back to this.
Much like Al Gore's statement about the internet was taken out of context of its meaning, so too is Giuliani's orignal statement taken out of context from its original meaning.
1) How is Giuliani's original statement taken out of context?
2) He is still saying that he will end illegal immigration. He is not qualifying it. He is saying that he will end illegal immigration. There is no more depth to it than that.
This is really my last post for a while. No qualifier.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Dung /= Watermark
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
OMGZ AMERICA = WHITNESS IF WE INTRODUCE LATIONES NO AMERICA?!
AMERICA MEANS WHITENESS, NO FREEDOM1
!
He qualified it later after being asked about it. You didn't read your own AP article very well at all. He even speaks to the impact on the economy. I like the step by step plan better than any proposed immediate amnesty plan.
Now, if he proposed a strong Balanced Budget Amendment he might even start to get my support.
I said long ago, if there is a candidate that promotes first closing the border then opening legal immigration along with a Balanced Budget Amendment they'd get my vote.
And the first statement's meaning is taken out of context. When you simply pretend that "totally" doesn't exist in the sentence then say it means that we can never do anything at all about illegal immigration it is most certainly taking the meaning out of context.
Also taking two statements placing them in vacuum with none of the surrounding statements is an example of taking them out of context as well.
As I said, we'll never "totally" control illegal immigration, but that does not mean we cannot effectively end it by disincentivizing illegal entry while promoting a logical legal entry program, both of which were spoken to in his later more in depth statement.