Last time, Jim.
The day was about being grammatically correct as he took the job.
There were multiple news stories on the TV, internet and other places about how ROBERTS made the error. There was already a mountain out there. The problem is that no one noticed that it had twin peaks.
And my point is that I don't think Obama needs to be burdened with the responsibility to apologize for every miscue by the media that would seem to cast what some feel is an unwarranted aspersion on a nearby individual. This was not something Obama did or directed others to do. Therefore he is not responsible. I am sure that he would appear to many to be a round heeled whore if he spent every day trying to pleasure everyone who might have been unfairly slighted by yesterday's news coverage.
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court - seems like the the guy should have a thick enough skin to let this roll off without lasting damage.
I have repeatedly stated that I voted against the President in both of his two elections. As for Brown, imagine again, Jim. I don't hire people as favors. It was an idiotic appointment and he was rightly ridiculed for it. Am I required to chime in when everyone else has already pointed out the obvious? As I said, I look for the unusual things that aren't commented on. Even then, I'm not going to hit them all. I'm not always on BWOT. It just seems that way.
In this case, the disparity in the coverage caught my eye. No one else seemed to notice, so I put a light on it.
And my point is that if you spend your time really looking hard you will likely find a lot of these "nuggets" where the media distorts the facts around a story with Obama. I am at a loss for why you attribute the miscues/distortions, and the responsibility for correction of them, to Obama and cite his failure to do so as a special view into his inner self which you find inadequate.
The Brownie example was one that I thought your sensitivity for fair play, if it was genuine and not contrived to justify your perceived disparity of news coverage concerning Obama, might have noted. Especially since Bush actually held the man up as a shield until he stopped squirming and then dropped him like shit covered sheet, but you didn't and apparently wouldn't. Because, to paraphrase your words, the failure was too mainstream and broadly substantiated.
So, you are motivated by the much more challenging task of discovering obscure events that give you that special insight into Obama's rotten core all on your own. Sounds like what Limbaugh's staff does for him.
And I think you must be serious or you would have just ignored this subject.
Rush Limbaugh, Warren Ballentine, Rev, Sharpton, NPR. I try to listen to everything. Not for the drumbeats, but for the individual instruments they represent to learn what I can.
No one is 100% right and no one is 100% wrong.
We sort of agree. No one is 100% right. It is too hard to be right all the time. But some can be wrong 100% of the time because that takes no special effort or talent. I assumed we were talking about processing data involved in abstract intellectual concepts and not near involuntary, programmed responses to stimuli, like getting an erection when stimulated, or taking a shit when the urge is present, etc.
I think we also agree it is good to get your information from a broad spectrum of sources, preferably from the sources each point of view gets their information from. Not because it is necessarily more accurate but so you can figure out how the various outlooks process data to arrive at conclusions. I am not a believer in the new political correctness theorum that suggests if a significant number of people believe in bullshit it must therefore be good bullshit, good enough to be converted into bullshit that cannot be called bullshit to its face if the number of people that believe it is large enough. My view is that bullshit is still bullshit, even if a lot of people believe it. I think Bernie Madoff is completing his lesson to a bunch of people on this concept right now.