What happens when you begin a conversation by calling someone dishonest

[brucds]

Conn is either totally dishonest - or stunningly ignorant - in his assertion that this bogus mosque "controversy" was turned into a national issue by President Obama's reaction to the hysteria. This was a cynically calculated "national issue", being fired up by Murdoch's media minions on FOX, before the President weighed in with a bit of sanity - and the reason that he spoke. Peter King railed against the mosque at a Heritage Foundation event in late July, and Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh - prominently featured on the Heritage Foundation website shilling for donations - have been ginning this thing up for months.

Conn isn't stupid - so my take is that he's dishonest. Smarmy stuff...

[Ocean]

I agree it did sound like partisan-driven dishonesty. Something to keep in mind in the future regarding his credibility.

[conncarroll]

Originally Posted by brucds

Conn is either totally dishonest - or stunningly ignorant - in his assertion that this bogus mosque "controversy" was turned into a national issue by President Obama's reaction to the hysteria. This was a cynically calculated "national issue", being fired up by Murdoch's media minions on FOX, before the President weighed in with a bit of sanity - and the reason that he spoke. Peter King railed against the mosque at a Heritage Foundation event in late July, and Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh - prominently featured on the Heritage Foundation website shilling for donations - have been ginning this thing up for months.

Conn isn't stupid - so my take is that he's dishonest. Smarmy stuff...

I believe Pam Gellar, not FOX or Ruport Murdoch, or Rush Limbaugh is the party that pressed this issue onto a national scale. That is why I said it was "simmering on the edges and then President Barack Obama decided to be Pam Gellar's publicist."

Yes, it was an issue before the President spoke about it, but is "brucds" really claiming that the President didn't raise the stakes by weighing in? It went from an occasional story on Morning Joe the week before to THE ONLY STORY THAT EXISTS IN THE ENTIRE COUNTRY after the President spoke. I don't produce cable news I just watch it.

And as far as honesty, please do watch Peter King's speech "railing" against the mosque at The Heritage Foundation:
http://www.heritage.org/Events/2010/07/Peter-King
I'll warn you though, it is a 50 minute video and you are going to have to wait a long long time before the ground zero mosque is mentioned (as in wait till the very end during the QandA ... and even then notice how measured King's response).

And here is how we promoted Kings appearance on The Foundry:
http://blog.heritage.org/2010/07/30/...dministration/

notice how often the mosque is mentioned ... not at all.

"brucds" should really get his facts straight before he accuses others of dishonesty.

Originally Posted by Ocean

I agree it did sound like partisan-driven dishonesty. Something to keep in mind in the future regarding his credibility.

And your jumping in here seems like partisan-driven piling on with only ignorance to show for it.

[conncarroll]

Originally Posted by Ocean

I agree it did sound like partisan-driven dishonesty. Something to keep in mind in the future regarding his credibility.

Please do detail exactly what you are accusing me of being dishonest about.

[TwinSwords]

Originally Posted by conncarroll

Please do detail exactly what you are accusing me of being dishonest about.

You were lying, or showing your ignorance, when you suggested that this wasn't a national issue until Obama commented.

[Ocean]

Originally Posted by conncarroll

Please do detail exactly what you are accusing me of being dishonest about.

Sure, Conn, this is what sounds dishonest. And you went at it again to emphasize the President's role in the controversy, as if he was driving it. Whether you realize it or not, you made this sound like it was no big deal at all, no one really talking much about it until President Obama brought it up. If that's not what you meant, then clarify it now, and perhaps, accept my advise of being more careful in the future as how you word your opinions. Or just accept that when you word your statements in ways that create an impression that doesn't reflect objective reality but partisan sentiment, there may be a reaction from those who disagree with you.

A humble commenter's opinion.

[conncarroll]

Originally Posted by TwinSwords

You were lying, or showing your ignorance, when you suggested that this wasn't a national issue until Obama commented.

Watch again. That is not what I said. I said this issue was "simmering around the edges" until Obama spoke.
I don't see how this is controversial. Are you all denying that The President of the United States significantly rose the profile of this issue when he chose to talk about it?

[Ocean]

Originally Posted by conncarroll

Watch again. That is not what I said. I said this issue was "simmering around the edges" until Obama spoke.
I don't see how this is controversial. Are you all denying that The President of the United States significantly rose the profile of this issue when he chose to talk about it?

That's your opinion only. Others disagree with you. See my other comment with links.

[TwinSwords]

Originally Posted by conncarroll

Watch again. That is not what I said. I said this issue was "simmering around the edges" until Obama spoke.
I don't see how this is controversial. Are you all denying that The President of the United States significantly rose the profile of this issue when he chose to talk about it?

You said it "should have remained a complete non-issue, and was just simmering around the edges," until Obama weighed in. Your clear and intended implication was that Obama made this into the wingnut feeding frenzy that it has been for the better part of August.

Don't pretend you don't know what you were doing, Conn.

[Don Zeko]

Originally Posted by conncarroll

Watch again. That is not what I said. I said this issue was "simmering around the edges" until Obama spoke.
I don't see how this is controversial. Are you all denying that The President of the United States significantly rose the profile of this issue when he chose to talk about it?

I don't know how exactly one would gauge the visibility of this issue, but I certainly didn't notice a difference in media coverage after Obama addressed it.

Originally Posted by Ocean

Sure, Conn, this is what sounds dishonest. And you went at it again to emphasize the President's role in the controversy, as if he was driving it. Whether you realize it or not, you made this sound like it was no big deal at all, no one really talking much about it until President Obama brought it up. If that's not what you meant, then clarify it now, and perhaps, accept my advise of being more careful in the future as how you word your opinions. Or just accept that when you word your statements in ways that create an impression that doesn't reflect objective reality but partisan sentiment, there may be a reaction from those who disagree with you.

A humble commenter's opinion.

I guess when y'all don't have anything substantive to argue about you choose stuff like this. Conn expressed HIS opinion. He can have one. In his opinion the Mosque controversy was ratcheted up after Obama entered the picture. He did NOT say it had NOT reached a national scale by that point. You all are arguing against an issue of degree and calling it dishonest...making you all the dishonest ones.

Originally Posted by Don Zeko

I don't know how exactly one would gauge the visibility of this issue, but I certainly didn't notice a difference in media coverage after Obama addressed it.

That's good Zeke. You, like Conn, are entitled to an opinion. Conn, like myself, thinks there certainly was a substantive increase in the volume. Even logic might tell you that taking positive value A and adding positive value B gives a sum of A+B larger than A. So, we are arguing about the size of B not any dishonesty about whether B exists or not.

[Ocean]

Originally Posted by Whatfur

I guess when y'all don't have anything substantive to argue about you choose stuff like this.

And what are you arguing/opining about? Our opinions about someone else's opinion? Will this go on and on and on?

Originally Posted by Ocean

And what are you arguing/opining about? Our opinions about someone else's opinion? Will this go on and on and on?

Its about the label of dishonesty, followed by your suggesting that that false label can be used against someone in the future. You all turn up so dull sometimes.

[Ocean]

Originally Posted by Whatfur

You all turn up so dull sometimes.

...and on and on and on...

[conncarroll]

Originally Posted by Don Zeko

I don't know how exactly one would gauge the visibility of this issue, but I certainly didn't notice a difference in media coverage after Obama addressed it.

I am not a waking Lexis/Nexis database, but I would be willing to bet a fairly large sum of money that coverage of the mosque issue significantly increased after Obama weighed in.

Like I said in the diavlog, it definitely did for my media diet.

[handle]

Originally Posted by Whatfur

Whatever...go dunk yourself in yourself.

Added: For the record, this was his response to Oceans comment above and has since been wisely deleted by author. The thread continues in "Life, the Universe and Everything", ""Handle the troll" thread... enjoy!

Originally Posted by Whatfur

And your jumping in here seems like partisan-driven piling on with only ignorance to show for it.

You might want to avoid opening yourself up to your own criticism...just some "friendly advice".

Hint: Ocean was addressing Conn, then you "pile on, with insult".
Or is that not what it's called when you do it?

Sorry Ocean, can't resist the blatant hypocrisy, I yield the floor.

[graz]

Originally Posted by brucds

Conn isn't stupid - so my take is that he's dishonest. Smarmy stuff...

Just add Conn to the Fox field and watch this.
Daily Show segment.

[conncarroll]

Originally Posted by graz

Just add Conn to the Fox field and watch this.
Daily Show segment.

The virulence of these attacks onlyconfirms my criticism of Obama on this issue.
He fumbled this into a disaster just like theGates arrest
Obama is Jimmy Carter. Get used to it.

Oh, and here is a good Daily Beast story about what a sham this whole mosque story is:
The Mosque Is the New Balloon Boy
by Asra Q. Noman
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-a...-media-frenzy/

I'm so happy my President chose to speak about this "juvenile and amateur" issue.

[TwinSwords]

Originally Posted by conncarroll

I am not a waking Lexis/Nexis database

No. But you are deeply dishonest. Or clueless. I'm betting on dishonest.

Note the dates:

— August 13: Transcript of Obama's remarks about Ground Zero mosque

— July 18: Sarah Palin sparks Twitter fight on mosque

So, Palin was feeding the frenzy, which by this point was already in full swing, nearly a full month before Obama finally weighed in.

OMG!!!! A twitter fight. Twin, your flailing, weak and unbecoming.

[TwinSwords]

Originally Posted by Whatfur

OMG!!!! A twitter fight. Twin, your flailing, weak and unbecoming.

Wanted to capture this before you had a chance to delete it.

Originally Posted by TwinSwords

Wanted to capture this before you had a chance to delete it.

No worries my mendacious friend.

[uncle ebeneezer]

And you can go even further back to see who made this non-troversy:

Hannity 5/13/10

Glenn Beck 5/26/10

But no, it really was Obama who caused the uproar 3 months later.

[Ocean]

Originally Posted by uncle ebeneezer

But no, it really was Obama who caused the uproar 3 months later.

Besides, even if that was the case, it would only speak about the noise that the anti-Obama media machinery makes.

[stephanie]

Originally Posted by uncle ebeneezer

And you can go even further back to see who made this non-troversy:

Hannity 5/13/10

Glenn Beck 5/26/10

But no, it really was Obama who caused the uproar 3 months later.

Heck, even conservative Ron Paul says the neo-cons are the cause of the uproar.

(To combine two topics in a tongue-in-cheek kind of way.)

Edit: to be clear, of course you're right. And someone who really thought it was a stupid topic not worth discussion should have been criticizing those who were trying to make it an issue and saying they should be ignored and we should talk about something of substance. Yet somehow they aren't worth criticism at all. I suppose it's the label one would apply to them.

So now its "caused the uproar". Pretty funny stuff...as in funny how dishonest you all are in labeling another dishonest. Quite the crew. Model citizens all.

[Eric Biesel]

Originally Posted by stephanie

Heck, even conservative Ron Paul says the neo-cons are the cause of the uproar.

(To combine two topics in a tongue-in-cheek kind of way.)

Funny.

[TwinSwords]

Originally Posted by uncle ebeneezer

And you can go even further back to see who made this non-troversy:

Hannity 5/13/10

Glenn Beck 5/26/10

But no, it really was Obama who caused the uproar 3 months later.

Thanks very much for those links.

What Conn really meant to say was that it was all fine and well as long as it was just wingnuts, lunatics, and conservatives performing one of their ritual hatefests against a despised minority. What made it a travesty was when the President weighed in on the wrong side.

[TwinSwords]

Originally Posted by Ocean

Besides, even if that was the case, it would only speak about the noise that the anti-Obama media machinery makes.

Precisely! There really was an uptick in wingnut/loon histrionics following the president's brief remarks. Conservatives were simply outraged that he would dare to comment on their anti-Muslim jihad.

[TwinSwords]

Originally Posted by uncle ebeneezer

And you can go even further back to see who made this non-troversy:

Hannity 5/13/10

Glenn Beck 5/26/10

But no, it really was Obama who caused the uproar 3 months later.

To this, let's add:

August 3: Mayor Bloomberg Stands Up For Mosque

Ten days before Obama uttered a word. And the Bloomberg speech (like Palin's remarks two weeks before) was extensively covered in the national press.

[handle]

Originally Posted by Whatfur

So now its "caused the uproar". Pretty funny stuff...as in funny how dishonest you all are in labeling another dishonest. Quite the crew. Model citizens all.

Quoted, cut, and pasted... you know where!

Originally Posted by TwinSwords

To this, let's add:

August 3: Mayor Bloomberg Stands Up For Mosque

Ten days before Obama uttered a word. And the Bloomberg speech (like Palin's remarks two weeks before) was extensively covered in the national press.

The "simmering" of bit players.

[TwinSwords]

Originally Posted by Whatfur

The "simmering" of bit players.

Conn said it was a complete non-story before Obama weighed in.

But almost a month before Obama said anything, neocon Jeffery Goldberg weighed in with this:

Peace-Seeking Muslims Should Refudiate Sarah Palin
JUL 19 2010, 11:55 AM ET

[...]

Let's put aside the issue of "refudiation" for a moment; the larger issue here is the intent of the Cordoba Initiative, which is trying to build the mosque. I know the people who run the initiative; they are, for lack of a better term, "peace-seeking Muslims." I spoke at a program co-sponsored by Cordoba last year, and I came to understand that the organization is interested mainly in battling extremism within Islam, and in building bridges to non-Muslim faiths. It seems to me that its mission makes Cordoba an appropriate fit for Ground Zero. One of the ways to prevent future Ground Zeroes is to encourage moderation within Islam, and to treat Muslim moderates differently than we treat Muslim extremists. The campaign against this mosque treats all Muslims as perpetrators. This is a terrible mistake, for moral and strategic reasons. I'm afraid that Sarah Palin, if she were ever to become President, would help create what Muslim extremists have so far unsuccesssfully sought to provoke: an all-out clash of civilizations.

Remember all that fake posturing you did a while ago in a long drawn out debate with PMP, demanding to know where the Muslims were who were coming out against Islamic extremism? Well here's one example. How is he being treated by your side?

I'll let Daisy Khan, one of the chief targets, answer that:

"This is like a metastasized anti-Semitism. That's what we feel right now. It's not even Islamophobia, it's beyond Islamophobia -- it's hate of Muslims."

[stephanie]

Originally Posted by TwinSwords

How is he being treated by your side?

Right. And this is also why the "just be quiet and it might go away faster" argument is so pathetic, let alone the efforts to blame people who opposed the embarassingly awful behavior in question by prominent Republican politicians and bloggers and other media figures. Silence suggests that no one has much of a problem with what is being said, and makes the targets (who could certainly be defined as all Muslims) feel like maybe non-Muslims in the US in general are in agreement.

Certainly I would agree that if it's just some crank who no one takes seriously saying something that it's reasonable to say the best approach is to ignore it. Pam Geller, for example, was ignored for ages. But when large segments of the mainstream Republican Party (including candidates for public office and at least two people who have been mentioned as Presidential candidates) and supposedly reasonable media outlets for them, like The Corner, go on about it, and opposition to mosques seems to be popping up more generally, it doesn't fall in that category, much as it should. It becomes a national issue, and important to reaffirm our adherence to American values in opposition to what's been going on.

[look]

Originally Posted by conncarroll

The virulence of these attacks onlyconfirms my criticism of Obama on this issue.
He fumbled this into a disaster just like theGates arrest
Obama is Jimmy Carter. Get used to it.

I think the Gates incident was planned. He'd been prepped on the question.

I think Gibbs' saying the Dems were going to lose seats was planned. Pissing off Pelosi was just icing on the cake. Bam wants to go all Clintonesque the second term.

I think Gibb's 'meltdown' was staged.

I think Obama's speech at the Ramadan dinner was intentionally supportive of the mosque, and he knew he'd catch flack.

I think these kinds of things are done to intentionally inflame and keep everyone's eyes off the really important issues, such as the wars and Wall Street/Big Business getting a walk in FinReg and Obamacare.

.

Originally Posted by TwinSwords

Conn said it was a complete non-story before Obama weighed in.

But almost a month before Obama said anything, neocon Jeffery Goldberg weighed in with this:



Remember all that fake posturing you did a while ago in a long drawn out debate with PMP, demanding to know where the Muslims were who were coming out against Islamic extremism? Well here's one example. How is he being treated by your side?

I'll let Daisy Khan, one of the chief targets, answer that:

Apples and oranges. And you misrepresent my argument from that thread. I did not say it while in the main thread, but let me be clear...NO ONE here is looser with the truth than YOU. And I have avoided your BS, just because you were not worth bothering with.

[TwinSwords]

Originally Posted by look

I think the Gates incident was planned. He'd been prepped on the question.

I think Gibbs' saying the Dems were going to lose seats was planned. Pissing off Pelosi was just icing on the cake. Bam wants to go all Clintonesque the second term.

I think Gibb's 'meltdown' was staged.

I think Obama's speech at the Ramadan dinner was intentionally supportive of the mosque, and he knew he'd catch flack.

I think these kinds of things are done to intentionally inflame and keep everyone's eyes off the really important issues, such as the wars and Wall Street/Big Business getting a walk in FinReg and Obamacare.

.

Hey, can I ask you a question? Do you listen to Alex Jones very much?

[TwinSwords]

Originally Posted by stephanie

Certainly I would agree that if it's just some crank who no one takes seriously saying something that it's reasonable to say the best approach is to ignore it. Pam Geller, for example, was ignored for ages. But when large segments of the mainstream Republican Party (including candidates for public office and at least two people who have been mentioned as Presidential candidates) and supposedly reasonable media outlets for them, like The Corner, go on about it, and opposition to mosques seems to be popping up more generally, it doesn't fall in that category, much as it should. It becomes a national issue, and important to reaffirm our adherence to American values in opposition to what's been going on.

A useful and important distinction. Defensive conservatives are fond of pointing out that there are crazies and extremists on all sides -- and surely, there are. The problem, I believe, is that the crazies have now become the dominant faction within the Republican Party, and by extension (and by virtue of the fact that the media is in their pocket), the nation. I guess the very best we can hope for is that once the tea party element takes over the US government, there will be a significant backlash from ordinary Americans who don't share the extreme views of the fringe of the conservative movement, but who are more or less oblivious to the presence of this political movement today.