Now, how many posts have you made about Trump's constant attacks, vulgar/profane and otherwise, and his lack of civility on a MUCH broader and more dangerous scale?
That is, referencing a stupid question from a reporter a "stupid son of a bitch" and apologizing for it is VASTLY different than saying repeatedly and dangerously that the media is an enemy of the people. How often have you condemned Trump for these dangerous, unapologetic, slanderous attacks?
You have NOT denounced Trump's dangerous repeated attacks on the free press. If you have, by all means, show me the link.
You haven't done that and the distinction between those dangerous ongoing, unrepentant attacks that you give a pass to and these moments of anger from Biden, which I condemn and HE apologizes for is notable.
I love it when you tell me dogmatically what I "have NOT" done. It simply makes you look more and more like the unhinged bully that you appear to be.
The problem you have is that when I've talked about Trump's problems, I've not done so in the expletive filled, vitriol laced, over the top, sort of unhinged manner that you have. Your assumption that finding fault with someone must be expressed in the same way that you do, is just incorrect.
As a point of reality, YOU HAVE NOT ON YOUR BLOG TAKEN A SINGLE POST to condemn Trump's attacks on the free press. It's an observable reality. Nothing bullying about it, nothing unhinged about it. It's just the demonstrable facts. And it has nothing to do with me wanting you to use expletives. It's just recognizing and denouncing clearly his dangerous attacks on the media, as responsible, mature conservatives have done.
Show me I'm wrong and I can apologize for the mistake.
From Stan's blog where you falsely accused me of banning you, here's my clarification and response...
As I recall, I asked him (Craig) to answer a direct and clear question and do so directly, and until he did so, I wouldn't keep his comments up. But I've not banned anyone. I'm just wanting people to answer questions in a respectful and orderly manner.
ANYONE can post their comments on my page. I don't have this comment moderation turned on the way you all do. IF someone posts, it will appear right away. NO BAN.
But I will likely delete any comments from people who won't answer questions until such time as they answer questions.
Once again, a failure to understand and a misrepresentation of reality.
1. Biden absolutely did NOT apologize! Dan's either lying or again speaking in ignorance as he seeks again to tsk-tsk the sins of his own while amplifying those of people he opposes without just basis.
2. Trump did NOT attack "a free press". He responded to attacks on him by the Trump-haters of the leftist press who have lied and corrupted reality. Said another way, Trump responded aggressively to the Trabues of the press.
3. There's little difference between banning someone versus constantly deleting his comments because the comments don't perfectly comport with petulant demands. Comment moderation is enabled here and at my blog due primarily to the childish behavior of feodor (and here to a certain extent Dan's as well), one specific behavior in particular. If Dan is at all interested, I'd be happy to demonstrate for him at his blog what that specific behavior looks like so that there is no longer any confusion as to why we utilize that function. You up for such a demonstration, Dan?
Craig... "Really, asking the president about the rampant inflation was "stupid"?"
? Do you even know what the question is? Here you go...
"Do you think inflation is a political liability ahead of the midterms?"
OF COURSE, it's a political liability. That's the only real answer to that question. Therefore it's a stupid question because there's only one obvious answer.
1. In your opinion it's a stupid question. Your opinion doesn't equal reality. 2. Did you apply this same level of scrutiny to stupid questions asked of Bush and Trump? 3. A question you perceive as stupid, does not automatically mean that the questioner is a "stupid son of a bitch". 4. Given Biden's lack of engagement on the entire issue of the 40% inflation (which hits the poor, POC, DFL voters harder than any others), isn't the topic of inflation and what Biden plans to do prior to the midterms, a reasonable one?
“Did you overpromise to the American public what you could achieve in your first year in office?”
“Is this country more unified than it was when you first took office?”
“I’m not sure I’ve heard you say if you would do anything differently in the second year of your term. Do you plan to do anything differently?”
“Why do you suppose such large segments of the American electorate have come to harbor such profound concerns about your cognitive fitness?”
You'd think that this was the first time a president has been asked a question where the answer was obvious, but I'm guessing that Biden didn't call those who asked the above questions "stupid SOBs".
The problem here is that you're focusing on the wrong thing. The point of the post isn't the stupidity of the question, but Biden's lack of civility and loss of control, when he campaigned on returning to civility.
Finally, Biden had the opportunity to actually answer the question by outlining what specific actions he was taking to deal with inflation, and to have made Doocey actually look stupid by giving a well thought out detailed response. Instead, he gave Doocey exactly what he was hoping for, a response that made Biden look incivil/uncivil.
Asking a question with an obvious answer in order to provoke a reaction isn't stupid, especially when the questioner gets a response that makes Biden look "bad".
Once again. A question with an obvious answer doesn't equal the questioner being a "stupid son of a bitch".
Just curious, I haven't seen anything from Dan about the major topics of the first 13 months of the Biden administration. Nothing on rampant inflation, nothing on empty store shelves, inability to stop COVID as promised, nothing on Harris not even visiting the border, Afghanistan, Ukraine, none of those things seem to get mentioned. Of course, really nothing about the great triumphs of Biden's first 13 months either.
But he's going to keep his promise to nominate a "black woman" to the SC.
BTW, what's a woman? Do you think it'll be a trans woman?
"1. Biden is sane, reasonable and doesn't regularly engage in childish name calling ("sleepy Joe," "Pocahantas," "mad woman"). That last is such a low bar that shouldn't have to be pointed out but we DO have to point it out."
10 comments:
1. It WAS a stupid question.
2. Biden apologized.
Now, how many posts have you made about Trump's constant attacks, vulgar/profane and otherwise, and his lack of civility on a MUCH broader and more dangerous scale?
That is, referencing a stupid question from a reporter a "stupid son of a bitch" and apologizing for it is VASTLY different than saying repeatedly and dangerously that the media is an enemy of the people. How often have you condemned Trump for these dangerous, unapologetic, slanderous attacks?
We see the answer to that.
Really, asking the president about the rampant inflation was "stupid"?
Ahhhh, the excusing of behavior when it's your guy that you get your panties in a wad when it's someone else.
1. I've written plenty about Trump and his "constant attacks". The fact that you choose to pretend that I haven't isn't my problem.
2. Biden ran on bringing civility back to the office, but any time you watch him respond to questions that he doesn't like, the civility disappears.
You have NOT denounced Trump's dangerous repeated attacks on the free press. If you have, by all means, show me the link.
You haven't done that and the distinction between those dangerous ongoing, unrepentant attacks that you give a pass to and these moments of anger from Biden, which I condemn and HE apologizes for is notable.
I love it when you tell me dogmatically what I "have NOT" done. It simply makes you look more and more like the unhinged bully that you appear to be.
The problem you have is that when I've talked about Trump's problems, I've not done so in the expletive filled, vitriol laced, over the top, sort of unhinged manner that you have. Your assumption that finding fault with someone must be expressed in the same way that you do, is just incorrect.
As a point of reality, YOU HAVE NOT ON YOUR BLOG TAKEN A SINGLE POST to condemn Trump's attacks on the free press. It's an observable reality. Nothing bullying about it, nothing unhinged about it. It's just the demonstrable facts. And it has nothing to do with me wanting you to use expletives. It's just recognizing and denouncing clearly his dangerous attacks on the media, as responsible, mature conservatives have done.
Show me I'm wrong and I can apologize for the mistake.
From Stan's blog where you falsely accused me of banning you, here's my clarification and response...
As I recall, I asked him (Craig) to answer a direct and clear question and do so directly, and until he did so, I wouldn't keep his comments up. But I've not banned anyone. I'm just wanting people to answer questions in a respectful and orderly manner.
ANYONE can post their comments on my page. I don't have this comment moderation turned on the way you all do. IF someone posts, it will appear right away. NO BAN.
But I will likely delete any comments from people who won't answer questions until such time as they answer questions.
Once again, a failure to understand and a misrepresentation of reality.
Wow! "Unhinged" is a good descriptor.
1. Biden absolutely did NOT apologize! Dan's either lying or again speaking in ignorance as he seeks again to tsk-tsk the sins of his own while amplifying those of people he opposes without just basis.
2. Trump did NOT attack "a free press". He responded to attacks on him by the Trump-haters of the leftist press who have lied and corrupted reality. Said another way, Trump responded aggressively to the Trabues of the press.
3. There's little difference between banning someone versus constantly deleting his comments because the comments don't perfectly comport with petulant demands. Comment moderation is enabled here and at my blog due primarily to the childish behavior of feodor (and here to a certain extent Dan's as well), one specific behavior in particular. If Dan is at all interested, I'd be happy to demonstrate for him at his blog what that specific behavior looks like so that there is no longer any confusion as to why we utilize that function. You up for such a demonstration, Dan?
Craig... "Really, asking the president about the rampant inflation was "stupid"?"
? Do you even know what the question is? Here you go...
"Do you think inflation is a political liability ahead of the midterms?"
OF COURSE, it's a political liability. That's the only real answer to that question. Therefore it's a stupid question because there's only one obvious answer.
1. In your opinion it's a stupid question. Your opinion doesn't equal reality.
2. Did you apply this same level of scrutiny to stupid questions asked of Bush and Trump?
3. A question you perceive as stupid, does not automatically mean that the questioner is a "stupid son of a bitch".
4. Given Biden's lack of engagement on the entire issue of the 40% inflation (which hits the poor, POC, DFL voters harder than any others), isn't the topic of inflation and what Biden plans to do prior to the midterms, a reasonable one?
“Did you overpromise to the American public what you could achieve in your first year in office?”
“Is this country more unified than it was when you first took office?”
“I’m not sure I’ve heard you say if you would do anything differently in the second year of your term. Do you plan to do anything differently?”
“Why do you suppose such large segments of the American electorate have come to harbor such profound concerns about your cognitive fitness?”
You'd think that this was the first time a president has been asked a question where the answer was obvious, but I'm guessing that Biden didn't call those who asked the above questions "stupid SOBs".
The problem here is that you're focusing on the wrong thing. The point of the post isn't the stupidity of the question, but Biden's lack of civility and loss of control, when he campaigned on returning to civility.
Finally, Biden had the opportunity to actually answer the question by outlining what specific actions he was taking to deal with inflation, and to have made Doocey actually look stupid by giving a well thought out detailed response. Instead, he gave Doocey exactly what he was hoping for, a response that made Biden look incivil/uncivil.
Asking a question with an obvious answer in order to provoke a reaction isn't stupid, especially when the questioner gets a response that makes Biden look "bad".
Once again. A question with an obvious answer doesn't equal the questioner being a "stupid son of a bitch".
Just curious, I haven't seen anything from Dan about the major topics of the first 13 months of the Biden administration. Nothing on rampant inflation, nothing on empty store shelves, inability to stop COVID as promised, nothing on Harris not even visiting the border, Afghanistan, Ukraine, none of those things seem to get mentioned. Of course, really nothing about the great triumphs of Biden's first 13 months either.
But he's going to keep his promise to nominate a "black woman" to the SC.
BTW, what's a woman? Do you think it'll be a trans woman?
"1. Biden is sane, reasonable and doesn't regularly engage in childish name calling ("sleepy Joe," "Pocahantas," "mad woman"). That last is such a low bar that shouldn't have to be pointed out but we DO have to point it out."
Post a Comment