Is Obama’s Newly Released Long Form Birth Certificate Legitimate?
Read the full analysis on my blog .
The highlights:
- The document itself has obviously been photo edited by someone. We don't know who.
- The document lacks any for official raised seal or stamp. Is this common practice in Hawaii?
- Unless and until Obama facilitates having an independent media investigation complete with expert analysis of the original document to establish its authenticity this issue won't be going away any time soon
It truly is a shame that the President is trying to clear this matter up, finally, but his own incompetence just continues to raise more questions. If you are going to to try to clean up this mess then try to be smart enough not to put out a document which has obviously been photo edited ... whether such editing was legitimate or not won't matter to the conspiracy theorists.
Allow the independent media investigation access to the source document, Mr. President. Do it for the sake of the country.
Submitted by GoRight on Wed, 2011-04-27 14:07
-->
- GoRight's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Tags:
Comments :
You need to bone up on digital imaging
From your linked diary:
Obviously, you know very little about digital image compression, because edge effects are a halmmark of the compression used in JPEG format and other formats.
Your conspiracy theory is null and void, and rejected out of hand.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Umm, I do know a lot about the subject.
It is true that lossy image compression will lead to distortions at a pixel level and that these distortions will tend to occur near distinct edges in the image. I even point some of those out in my images using the blue arrows.
However, compression will not produce the types of pure white borders around the text that I point out with the red arrows. If anything the compression will obscure such artifacts, not enhance or create them. No, those artifacts are clearly recognizable by anyone who has done even a modest amount of text extraction using programs like Photoshop. They are very clear.
As for your claim of this being a conspiracy theory, I am not even claiming that the manimulations were illegitimate. They clearly could be an artifact of the processing done in Hawaii. But the fact remains that the image was manipulated electronically as the hallmark borders illustrate.
Here's a sample of my photo editing on Wikimedia Commons
. Please note that I also have extensive experience in this area outside of that context as well.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Zoom in closer...
...and you will see that there is in fact no "pure white border" around the text you are pointing to. Instead, there is various colors, generally lighter than the background but characterized by pixels of gray and also of the same general hue as the background-- including in pixels directly adjacent to the darker gray text.
Also notable is the fact that the halo of lighter pixels extends out several pixels beyond the dark gray text. Even if the border were as you describe it, which it is not, a photoshopper would have had to purposefully expand their selection for no reason to select that much of a border. On the other hand, compression edge effects generally extend out several pixels.
Bottom line, what we see in your images is very much unlike one would see if one had selected text from a document with black text on a white background and then pasted it on this document.
It's good that you are not claiming any illegitimate manipulations of the image, becasue you have absolutely no evidence of any. Your red arrows point to a whole lotta nothin as far as evidence of any doctoring of the image.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
No
No, they clearly show evidence of photo editing but as I said in the article, we don't know who did that editing or why. Given that the document has been photo edited we have no way to know if the content has been altered or not.
So the bottom line is that this document in its current form is worthless as far as being a representation of Obama's original birth record.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4No evidence of editing.
You have no evidence of editing; however, I will allow that any digital image purporting to be a copy of a paper document could have been doctored. Therefore, certain busy beaver red-bar types will make similar claims as you have made her about any digital representation of Obama's birth certificate that is released. Since sending each of you the original document is an impossibility, there's really nothing more that can be done to satisfy you. Certain red bars, you included apparently, will continue to flog this dead horse forever I guess.
Oh well...
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Again, no
It depends on what your definition of "editing" is.
I have evidence that the document is not simply a direct, unretouched image of an original source document. The document provided was clearly "edited" in the sense that the original source image was manipulated using photo editing software before being released to the public.
Whether the document was "edited" in the sense that its content is substantively different than that found on the original source document is unknown at this point. I make no claims either way and I make that clear in my article.
The fact that we have evidence that the image was post processed opens the door for the conspiracy theorists to (and rightly so) call into question whether the content was altered from that on the original source document.
If Obama truly wants to put this issue behind him as he claims then he obviously has to be smarter than he was in this case. Providing a version of the document which is so easily called into question is not the path to making this issue go away. A cynic might wonder whether the document was purposely put out in this state simply to stir up the conspiracy theorists as a means of continuing to downplay the importance of the issue. I take no position on that point.
This is certainly true. But providing a clean, unretouched image of the original document which therefore contains no obvious signs of electonic manipulation would go a long way towards resolving the issue. Certainly it would do so much more than providing a document which DOES contain such signs.
For example, providing a clear scan in a format which does not use lossy compression such a TIFF or whatever would make it much harder for the conspiracy theorists to claim foul. It is much harder to hide electronic manipulations in such a format because they would inevitably create telltale discontinuities within the image at a pixel level.
This should be obvious at this point and should have been obvious to Obama before he released the document in the form that he did. At least it should have been obvious to someone who is as smart as Obama is claimed to be.
Actually that isn't true. I have already indicated in my article what the best option for resolving this would be: allow access to the original source document by independent news organizations (from across the political spectrum) and allow them to engage their own independent experts with no ties to any governmental agency. These independent experts could then provide their own analysis to determine the authenticity of that source document.
This is the level of evidence that would be required in a court of law for a case where the authenticity of the document is being called into question. This is the only level of evidence that has any hope of quieting the birthers.
Making such an investigation happen would easily be accomplished by someone in Obama's current position even though the document is currently under the control of the state of Hawaii. Unless and until he takes these steps he will continue to be called into question by the birthers.
Personally I am in favor of his taking these steps not because I question his citizenship but because I see this as the only viable way to put this issue behind us.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I'm Afraid You're Sadly Mistaken...
..if you think anything Obama releases regarding this Birth Certificate thing well settle the birthers. No matter what he releases, it won't help. His legitimacy will continually be called into question until he is out of office. And it's shameful because I can't recall any president who's been unhder this much scrutiny. You guys are talkng about pixel quality and such. It doesn't matter.
Obama had news organization see the same document you see now. They have already verified the validty. Previous secretaries of state accepted what he submitted in 2008. Bringing more "indepedent analysis" would only invite more conspiracy about how the media is complicit in Obama's presidency. He ordered a few copies and then scanned it for all the world to see.
This won't end. And Obama probably won't want it to.
http://wealthweekly.blogspot.com
Wii FC:2805-8311-8040-2678 Brawl: 2277-7051-2186
Well, I wouldn't say that I am *SADLY* mistaken ...
by all of this but perhaps that's close enough. :)
I will agree that for the most hardened conspiracy theorists out there that no amount of information, even letting them handle the original document themselves, will ever make dissuade them.
But as much as you might like to think of the birthers as being nothing but tin foil hat types I am afraid that you are the one likely to be sadly mistaken here. By definition the tin foil hat types within society will only comprise a very, very tiny percentage of the population. This is not the case with the birthers.
A quick google search turns up the following information:
So not only are there significant percentages of the general population who believe that Obama was NOT born in the USA, their numbers have actually been increasing not decreasing.
I'm sorry, but you can't actually paint 25% of the general population as being tin foil hat types. That's just not credible. There are reasonable, normal, ordinary, and everyday people out there who have serious doubts as to whether Obama is a natural born US citizen.
Now, while my suggestion won't convince the most hardened tin foil hat types out there (as you point out) THAT group isn't actually Obama's main concern. They are likely what? 1% of the total population at most?
No, Obama's concern is with the more reasonable and reachable 26% out of that 27% who are NOT your run of the mill tin foil hat types. It is these people who would be more likely convinced by an open and independently conducted expert investigation. If the percentage of people who believe that Obama was not born in the USA dropped from 27% to 1%, for example, this issue would simply disappear.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Are you done editing your comment yet?
8 revisions! For goodness sakes, make sure you get every word of this backpedaling and rationalization just perfect ;-)
To qualify as a tinfoil hat wearer, one need only be a believer of a conspiracy theory with scant basis in evidence. A tinfoil hat theory does not become something other than a tinfoil hat theory just because some magic number of believers is reached.
As a red-bar, I can see why you'd like that to be otherwise. Then, when Rush and his ilk insinuate that Obama might have been born in Kenya, and his millions of ditto-heads lap it all up like the obedient sheep that they are, he could have the power to turn a conspiracy theory into something more credible--something of more political weight-- than a conspiracy theory.
Sadly, until and unless these dittoheads break the spell that Rush and the right wing misinformation machine has over them, there is little that can be done to reach them, and Obama will have to content himself to an upper bound on his winning margin in 2012 to something on the order of 80%-20% ;-)
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
What difference does it make to you ...
how many times I edit a comment?
If you don't want people to edit their comments then turn off the edit button.
No, the reference to wearing a "tin foil hat" is to allude to someone who is schizophrenic and delusional (i.e. because they are wearing the tin foil hat to block the mind reading or controlling waves). We know from epidemiological evidence on the disease that schizophrenics only comprise aout 1% of the population.
People who are not mentally ill are, again by definition, normal everyday people. So I stand by my comment that a significant percentage of normal everyday people have doubts about whether Obama was born in the USA. The polls bear this out.
Actually, this is incorrect. In this context the definition of a tinfoil hat theory would be a theory that is so out of the mainstream that you have to be delusional to believe it. This is why the discussion of schizophrenia is apropos.
First, ad hominem attacks are logical fallacies. [1]
Second, Rush isn't even a birther. Here's a transcript for a segment he did back in January, 2011 where he is merely reporting on other news at the time. He just cuts straight through the whole issue to expose how the Democrats were likely playing games with the whole birther crowd.
Go read the whole transcript.
It's hilarious how Rush just decimates Abercrombie and neatly sidesteps the whole "possible dirty trick" being setup by the Democrats. Abercrombie comes off looking like a fool. Like one of the Keystone Cops. This is especially true now that Obama has allegedly released his long form certificate and it has now been moved to a more secure location.
Lets hope that they don't lose it again. :)
Rush just sees through the whole attempted subterfuge while at the same time illustrating the circus atmosphere of the entire situation. I especially like this bit of humor:
Priceless comedy gold! :) And these buffoons tee the whole thing up for him like clockwork.
------------------------------------------
[1] This means that they have no basis in rational thought. :)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Meh
Aw cmon man... just a little jab on my part, perhaps a bit south of the beltline but within the bounds of what is to be expected in our exchanges. Don't be such a sourpuss! I put a winking smiley after the comment-- clearly an indication that the comment was not meant to be taken seriously.
This convoluted and strained logic for assigning a cap on the number of believers of a conspiracy theory at the total number of schizophrenic people is purely your own. Clearly, people without schizophrenia-- so called "everyday people"-- can and do believe conspiracy theories.
Your 1% cap rule is without merit, null and void, rejected out of hand. By your standard none of the big tinfoil hat conspiracy theories-- JFK assassination conspiracy theory, moon landing doubt, 9/11 detonation theories, and theories of an alien landing at Area 51-- would be considered conspiracy theories.
Nah. It only means that, on that issue, you are so wrong and impervious to the facts at hand that you deserve to be the target of derision. Or, to spread the tinfoil hat theory, you only have to be willing to ignore the evidence so as to muddy the waters. Actual clinical delusions not required.
Now, as to this Rush/Abercrombie thing (which ignores all the other birther insinuations and "jokes" that Rush makes to muddy the waters, but I'll leave that aside for now), it appears that Rush is basing his whole take on the thing on that WorldNetDaily article-- which, if you go to the transcript of the Abercrombie interview, totally misrepresents what Abercrombie said. This is the total sum of what Abercrombie said about Obama's birth certificate:
There's nothing in the interview which "suggested that a long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate for Barack Obama may not exist within the vital records," as Rush claimed. Looks like Rush just used a poorly written artcile published by poor quality and/or tabloid news sources like the Daily Mail, and failed to check original sources, but that is no surprise really-- he is not constrained by the truth, never has been. But it works because the rubes that take him seriously probably think the Daily Mail is a reputable source for hard news.
Comedy gold indeed-- if you like your comedy to be based in fabrications, falsehoods, and trumped up nonsense.
P.S., I edited to correct a typo. See, even skymutt edits comments! Just not 8 times usually :-)
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
You're out of touch with the common man.
A totally asted CYA.
Most readers don't even know when a comment has been edited. For example, unless you tell me like you just did I would have no way to know that you edited your comment at all. You only know because you have magic powers.
Tell me, do you know how much a gallon of milk costs? :)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I never claimed to be a common man :-)
I am humble in many respects, but not as far as my politcal acumen or knowledge is concerned. I am far beyond the common man, as are you. I'm not saying I'm better than the common man, just that the common man just is more interested in other stuff and has not educated himself on political issues like I have. One side effect of this is that the common man is more susceptible to political beliefs that are untrue than I am.
No magic powers... I just have the box checked to get email notifications on replies. An email is generated on every revision. I simply counted emails. If I had special powers, I would not use them.
Send an email to Ender so you can post directly to the front page-- that's what I did-- and you'll have the same "magic powers" I have, which do not include any special powers to see revisions.
I use the self scan aisle to buy my groceries, for the record ;-)
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Tin Foil Hat
From Wikipedia
(a questionable source to be sure, but clearly an impartial one in this context):
So do you actually believe that upwards of 25% of the general population of the US believes that they need to "shield the brain from such influences as electromagnetic fields, or against mind control and/or mind reading; or attempt to limit the transmission of voices directly into the brain"?
Do you actually believe that upwards of 25% of the general population of the US suffers from "paranoia and persecutory delusions" as you are implying in this case based on your characterization?
Personally I doubt that the percentage comes anywhere close to that level. People who suffer from these symptoms are, at least I would think they are, typically suffering from some sort of mental illness such as schizophrenia.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Now, as to this
Rush makes jokes? Gosh, who would have guessed? STOP THE PRESSES!
Regardless, I fail to see how jokes can muddy the waters on this issue. Jokes are jokes and anyone with more than two neurons to rub together knows that jokes are not meant to be taken seriously. You do know that, right? :)
Check your facts, son. Rush made it clear that he was reading from the UK Daily Mail article:
Also note on the bottom of the transcript for that segment we have:
So here we have a case of Rush basically reading from an article and interspersing his own insightful commentary on the topic. This is a common technique of his.
Rush didn't claim anything. He was reading directly from the UK Daily Mail article:
So here we have a case of Rush making it clear that we was reading directly from the UK Daily Mail and now you call that "Rush's claim" and "his whole take" on the issue? And all the while having the chutzpah to complain about the facts having been "totally misrepresented"?
You better move outta that glass house you live in, skymutt. :)
And the irony is that as you try to put the views of the UK Daily Mail and World Net Daily into Rush's mouth (as if they were his own) when you actually listen to (read) his personal commentary on the issue he is actually making fun of how absurd the whole thing is. All around. He states several times that things are so fishy and that they don't add up that people will need to be very careful on this topic.
No, the comedy gold is found in how Rush just totally sees through what the Democrats were obviously trying to set up. Using Abercrombie like this in hopes of baiting and hooking the gullible into buying into this fantasy that Abercrombie was acting alone in all of this. Rush is right that's totally absurd that Abercrombie would do all of this without talking to Obama, that he just woke up one morning and decided to talk to the press about this all on his own. It's an obvious play by Abercrombie and the Democrats where they are hoping that they could make some of the birthers look silly when they suddenly "find" the smoking gun evidence.
Trouble is that the "cleverness" of the whole Democrat plan was so transparent that they didn't catch anybody and instead ended up with egg all over their faces. Now that's comedy gold, my man. THAT's comedy gold.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4My mistake
My mistake. I meant to say UK Daily Mail there. Originally, I had thought that the UK Daily Mail "picked up" the actual World Net Daily article, but that was not the case. Sorry for the confusion. I don't think that the mistake is material to the jist of my post-- merely substitute "UK Daily Mail" there.
...and the UK Daily Mail is right-wing tabloid garbage. For a recent example of the paper's lack of credibility, it looks like they posted a phony photoshopped picture of what was supposed to be bin Laden's corpse
. Just reading from a source like that, when the original source is at hand, is hardly the hallmark of someone who is interested in the truth.
Bottom line: Abercrombie didn't say anything like what was attributed to him in the Daily Mail, and, if Rush truly knew that, he muddied the waters by not making that clear. Instead, he read the article verbatim, as if it was a fair representation of what Abercrombie had said.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Closure
Your version of a "bottom line" ignores one of my statements from above which I will now repeat here to emphasize it as my version of a "bottom line":
Let's call this thread wrap. :)
[I have made gratuitous edits to this comment to fill up Skymutt's email! :)]
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I cannot let that stand unrebutted
because I absolutely did not ignore your quoted passage-- there was no need to. Your "bottom line" statement is true as far as it goes, but it is vague in the extreme and in no way, fashion, or form contradicts anything I have said.
Yes, Rush did say that "things" were suspicious, absurd, fishy, etc. but unfortunately, none of those those absurd "things" he was talking about was the absurd thing which I brought up, which was how badly the Daily Mail article misrepresented what Abercrombie had said.
Rush not only failed to mention (probably purposefully) how badly the Daily Mail article had misrepresented Abercrombie's statement, he also then compounded his error by basing his entire setup theory on those representations.
I'll be happy to let this thread die with this being my final comment and your next comment being the final word, provided that you counter my specific claims here (or admit that I have a point).
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Clarification.
I highlighted the substantive portions of both your bottom line and mine. I thought that this would make my point obvious but apparantly further explanation is required.
When you write :
I read that as saying that Rush was endorsing what the UK Daily Mail wrote as being 100% true and accruate and therefore a reflection of what Rush believed.
When I write:
I mean that given the context your assertion (as described and perceived by me) was and is wholly unwarranted. Rush was reading from something that he found and reacting to it in real time. This is a common format for his segments. He was using the UK Daily Mail piece as a spring board to make a point and to make a joke about the Democrats.
I contend that in the context of making a satirical joke you cannot legitmately say anything about what Rush was or was not intending to imply by reading the UK Daily Mail piece verbatim. The entire piece was little more than a prop to support his discussion of a larger point.
Not true.
His setup theory was actually based primarily on the contention that we were being expected to believe that Abercrombie would go out and do this all on his own. That one day he would just wake up and decide to hold a press conference on this topic and make grandiose representations about what he was going to release.
It never really mattered to the theory whether Abercrombie could or could not find the vital records. He could never have released them without Obama's permission even if he wanted to. That's the law in Hawaii as both Abercrombie and Obama have been saying all along. So it was a foregone conclusion that Abercrombie was not going to be able to deliver the goods.
All the setup theory required was that Abercrombie go out and stir up a fuss and not actually produce anything to back it up ... wait until someone took
noticethe bait and started pointing that fact out (sort of like the UK Daily Mail piece was actually doing in this case, BTW) ... and then they would drop the hammer to make the complainers look like idiots.Gee, isn't that just about exactly how things played out? The UK Daily Mail points out that Abercrombie hasn't produced the evidence (whether Abercrombie actually claimed the evidence was missing is irrelevant) and then later (after a suitable waiting period to try and hook as many fish as possible) Obama releases the smoking gun copy of the alleged birth certificate?
The only problem for the Democrat's little plan is that Rush let the cat out of the bag all the way back in January when the whole thing began. In a way Rush's piece, aside from being funny, was telling organizations LIKE the UK Daily Mail to be more careful because he saw the Democrats setting up a trap and they (groups like the UK Daily Mail) would end up looking like idiots.
Well, that was January and this is May and Obama just recently dropped the smoking gun and here you are talking about how the UK Daily Mail was a bunch of idiots.
Hmmm. Sounds to me like Rush was right all along.
[P.S. Feel free to respond to this if you feel the need.]
[P.S.S. I will also happily stipulate that the UK Daily Mail piece did, in fact, get the facts wrong concerning what Abercrombie actually stated in the interview you referenced. Whether they did so as a willful act of misrepresentation remains to be proven.]
[P.S.S.S. I also edited several typos and added several P.S.'s to fill up Skymutt's email! :)]
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Fine..
Believe Rush's theory if you want-- I can't disprove it, I just don't see a whole lot of evidence for it. The main thing I see here is one right wing source, the Daily Mail, publishing a lie, and another right wing source, Rush, repeating the lie and failing to set the record straight. So, because of Rush, his millions of listeners end up believing a lie about a Democrat.
Furthermore, after thinking about it, I would say that you almost have to be naive to believe that Rush had not come across the Abercrombie interview on the Honolulu paper's website, since he was concocting the Abercrombie trap theory, and would have been interested in anything Abercrombie had to say re: Obama's birth certificate. That would mean that he likely would have known that the Daily Mail article had it wrong when he read it.
But Rush lies every single day he's on the air, so no surpise there. Give me a random air date and an accurate transcript and I will prove it.
Meanwhile, Obama is doing a great job, and after dispatching Bin Laden, I've now upgrated him to an A- so far.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Heh.
I don't believe it. He may spin a yarn now and ag'in. He may juxtapose actual news stories with his own commentary and conjectures thereon. But I don't believe that he outright lies. So I think what you must be calling a "lie" is really just a hyper-partisan (OMG, a BR-ism) reaction to something that is most likely a grey area at best and subject to personal perspective and interpretation.
That being said, and not wanting to go down a parallel path to "Bush Never Lied", go for it. I throw down the gauntlet. Pick a couple of examples and let us shine a light on them. Or, better yet, pick something from today's show so that it is topical. :)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Okay, lie of the day.
Admittedly it's not a great one, because it looks like most of the segments cover minutiae of the Obama Administration's response to bin Laden's killing, and I don't want to research that mess.
But anyway, Rush said this:
This is on technical grounds a lie because the first meeting to plan the Bin Laden mission was Monday, Marth 14th. The NCAA tournament field was announced Sunday, March 13th. So, Obama could have made his picks on Sunday, before plainning of the mission began.
The bigger lie, even though you will likely dispute that it is a lie, is that Obama "took time out from planning" when he taped a segment for ESPN on March 15th.
There's no indication that Obama was doing any planning whatsoever for the mission on Tuesday, March 15th, much less that he "took time out from" that planning to tape the segment. He had a meeting on Monday, March 14th. It is absurd to suggest that taking part in a scheduled activity on Tuesday represents "taking time out" from something he did on Monday. So absurd that I'm just going to say that it's a lie. If you had made a claim like that, I would have no qualms about calling it a lie.
The whole thing is an absurd smear. Obama had five national security meetings on the raid over a six week period. There's no reason to believe that any additional meetings were needed to formulate a good plan and delegate the implementation to his military commanders. That's what was done, and the plan was obviously good-- the mission succeeded in its objective. There's no valid reason why Obama would cancel a scheduled appointment to tape the bracket segment for ESPN in March for a raid that ccurred in May, any more than he should have cancelled the Easter Egg Roll, the Correspondents Dinner, or any other scheduled event between March 14th and May 1st.
Oh and by the way, I wached the ESPN segment here
and Obama spends the first part of the segment talking about the plight of the earthquake/tsunami victims in Japan and giving a website that viewers could go to to give aid. The segment, in other words, shows that Obama is on the job, working, using the office of President for a good cause.
It's just total garbage all the way around. Rush should really be ashamed that he spouts this nonsense.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Pick another, my man, this one's a dud for your side.
An understatement by far.
Well, as long as we are allowed to introduce speculation about when Obama did, or didn't, make his picks it is equally likely that he made those picks on March 15 just before he taped the segment with ESPN.
If that was the case then Rush was right and his statment was NOT a lie.
So the best you can do with this line of conjecture is to assert that it was a lie based on your own supposition regarding facts that are not in evidence. I reject your assertion without more definitive evidence of when Obama actually made his picks.
In what way would that have been a lie? What definition of "lie" are you actually apealing to here?
By your own statements and sources Obama began his planning of the Bin Laden assault on March 14. If he taped the ESPN segment on March 15 (both of which ARE facts in evidence) then obviously while taping that segment he was not planning the Bin Laden assault. If he was not actively planning the assault then it is accurate to say that he took timeaway from that planning.
This seems inescapable, and if that is the case then it is a true statement that he took time out from planning the assault to make his picks ... or at least to spend time on taping them ... which points to a distinction without a difference IMHO.
Now, he may have also taken time out from planning the assault to do any number of other things as well, but that does not change the known fact that one of those things was the taping of the ESPN segment.
So yes, I dispute that this is a lie because (a) it is an accurate representation of the known facts, and (b) it actually gives Obama the benefit of the doubt as to what he was paying attention to while not attending to his NCAA picks.
This is a humorous response to me because it only exacerbates the issue which you are railing against. So now you are contending that not only did he take time away from planning the assault to tape the ESPN segment but you are claiming that he actually took time away from that activity to do any number of other things as well. You are implying that rather than focusing on the (arguably) most important issue before him at the time that he was actually doing God knows what?
I'm OK with that if that's the assumption you want to plant in everyone's mind but it seems to go against everything Obama is trying to do on the subject. Obama wants everyone to think that he was the brains behind the entire thing. That without him we never would have gotten Bin Laden. Why to here him and his closest advisors talking about it Obama may as well have hand picked the assault team and may have actually been directing the boots on the ground in real time from the situation room. At least that's my perception of what they would like the American people to believe.
But I like your account better. Obama actually have very little to do with the whole thing. So much so that he had time to make his picks and film the ESPN segment and attend all sorts of other previously planned functions precisely BECAUSE he was not otherwise occupied with planning the assault.
Works for me. Thanks for clearing that up even though it still doesnt' make Rush's statement a lie in any sense of the word that I am familiar with.
Looking over the transcript you also seem to be cherry picking one specific sentence and then trying to take it very literally when that literal interpretation is at odds with the rest of the context. For example, Rush also made the following statements in that segment:
So that headline and the associated story
are trying to counteract previous criticism that Obama took for even taping that ESPN piece. The main point of that piece is to say, "See, Obama wasn't slacking off while he was taping that ESPN segment. We now know that he was actively planning the assault at the same time! At least that's how I read "... in Midst of ...".
Personally I don't think that actually helps your cause much. OK, so in this scenario Obama is supposedly planning the assault while he is also making his NCAA picks? He needs to focus on planning one of the most important missions of his Presidency and he can't be torn away from his ESPN moment? Something's just wrong with that view as well.
Here, in the very same paragraph from the one containing your quote Rush is actually phrasing the point from the exact opposite persspective. Here he is making that point that rather than the ESPN bit taking time from planning the Bin Laden assault ... that it was actually the exact opposite: planning the assault was actually time carved out from his other activities like playing golf and making the NCAA picks.
So do you prefer this second perspective? I mean we know for a fact that he was out golfing just prior to the execution of the assault on Bin Laden's compound. We also know for a fact that he had to have been making his NCAA picks between March 13 and March 15 based on your own analysis. Since the first planning meeting was on March 14 as you yourself point out, it would seem that this second perspective may actuially be more accurate: Obama took time out from making his NCAA picks to plan the Bin Laden assault.
So I fail to see any way you can spin this into a case of Rush lying about any of this. The facts are totally against you as shown above no matter which way you look at them.
Irrelevant. Whether the plan turned out to be a good one, or not, it doesn't change the truth of Rush's statement. It is a fact, and one that you don't even seem to be disputing, that Obama took time away from the planning of the Bin Laden assault to do other things. It is also a fact that one of those things was the taping of the ESPN segment about his NCAA picks. So it is acurrate to say, as Rush did, that Obama took time away from planning the assault to make his picks (or at least to advertise them via ESPN if you prefer that nuance).
Also irrelevant to whether Rush's statement was true, or not.
Unless you somehow equate "nonsense" with "the truth" as demonstrated above Rush has nothing to be ashamed of. Actually even if you ARE equating those two then he still doesn't have any reason to be ashamed, that is of course unless you are somehow also equating "ashamed" with "justifiably proud". :)
Bottom Line: Rush didn't lie. Not even close. So, bring on your next example.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I reject your loose standards for truth-telling
But still a lie :-)
So, according to your logic, I can say that Bush snorted coke while he was president, and since you have not submited any evidence to the contrary such as eight years of clean drug tests, I can say I have not lied. That's exactly what you are saying-- that I can claim things are true that I don't know are true, as long as they could be true based on the evidence submitted.
Another example-- you ask me whether the Clippers won their game last night. I have no idea-- they could have won, or they could have lost, based on my knowledge. Nevertheless, I tell you that they have won. According to you, this is not a lie.
Broken down into simplest terms, (true OR false) is not equivalent to true.
Your exceedingly loose interpretation of the word "lie" removes all meaning of the term, and opens up endless possibilities for dishonest people to knowingly make misleading and false statements and allow those dishonest people to claim that they had not lied.
No. To take time away from Activity A by doing Activity B, you have to show that the time spent doing Activity B either was allocated to Activity A or should ahve been allocated to Activity A. In the case we are discussing, you are relying on criteria 2, but are coming up woefully short in making a case for your claim, since there is no reason to believe that Obama should have allocated all waking hours of March 15th to planning the mission-- especially since he had just had a meeting on the subject the previous day.
Fr another way of looking at the situation, allow me to go to my trusty bag of analogies. Suppose Mr. Jones has a teenage daughter. Per Mr. Jones' instructions, his daughter is supposed to do her homework at a scheduled time each night. As it so happens, on Tuesday, March 15th, he goes up to his kids' room during the allotted homework time slot to randomly check on her progress. But instead of finding his child doing her homework, he finds the child playing a video game. When he asks the child to exlplain why she is playing the video game instead of doing her homework, she tells him "I'm just taking time out from working on my homework right now."
Not satisfied, Mr. Jones demands that his daughter show him what work she has done on her homework so far that night, and the truth eventually comes out-- "Well, I haven't actually worked on my homework yet tonight-- When I said I was taking time out from my homework, I meant that I was taking time out from my homework that I did yesterday."
Mr. Jones feels like he has been originally misled. If his daughter had merely procrastinated on her homework, he probably would have let the situation off with a reprimand, but since he feels that a bit of a lie has been told, he takes away the daughter's video game for a week.
Has Mr. Jones punished his child unfairly? Of course not. By suggesting that she was taking time out from doing her homework, she was implying that she had been doing some work on that night's homework-- which was clearly what her dad was asking her about. She had told a fib. Instead, she had been playing the video game the whole time, instead of doing what she was supposed to be doing-- a fact that she was hoping she could conceal.
The moral of the story: right wingers let Limbaugh lie to them in a way they would (hopefully) not let their teenage daughters get away with!
Obama has no military background-- why would he not simply allow his commanders to plan the mission? Obama's role was to bring the relevant players together, listen to what experts were telling him, make the major decisions, and oversee the process. This was handled in the meetings. Detailed tasks, such as planning tactics, would have been left to others more educated in military tactics. A competent leader in this situation would have likely had little or nothing that he needed to do regarding mission planning on that Tuesday-- everything he needed to do would have likely been handled in the meeting!
But what exactly was "tearing him away" from taping the March 15th ESPN segment as scheduled? Why did he need to be "focused" on the mission on March 15th, when his meeting on the subject was March 14th? Please be specific, since you seem to be claiming knowledge of a task or tasks that Obama neglected on March 15th regarding the Bin Laden mission that have not been reported in the press.
And just an observation here: I find it fascinating that on the deficit issue, you defended to the point of absurdity your use of a single bottom line figure-- total debt accumulated during their term-- to judge a president's fiscal performance. But now, when the so called "bottom line"-- the binary success or failure outcome of the mission-- does not favor your side, you are going to nitpick Obama's failure to cancel a short scheduled event several weeks before the mission?
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Yawn
Actually, no.
But this thread is becomiong overly long and convoluted so let us cut to the chase. As I asked above, please provide your definition for the word "lie". Until we have that nailed down I am just wasting my time here as your goal posts will just shift all over the place.
From a Boolean Logic perspective
you are incorrect on that point. And you are wrong for both the logical disjunction (OR) 
and the exclusive disjunction (XOR) 
functions:
But I anticipate that you will want to ignore the inconvenience of appealing to formal logic in this case. :)
Regardless, even in the sense that you meant your original statement it would certainly be equally true that:
You are the one making an affirmative assertion here that Rush lied. Ergo the burden is on you to prove that (a) Rush knowingly made a false statement, and that (b) he did so with the intent to deceive.[1] As far as I can tell you have failed to establish via any of the known facts in evidence that either of these conditiions for being a lie have been met.
If you can't prove your case then your assertion has no merit by definition. It is as simple as that.
Perhaps you should try and find a more significant example? Even if you were to somehow succeed to proving your case in this instance, we would still have to then assess the question: So what? You are tilting at windmills
with this example.
------------------------------------------------------
[1] I am relying on the primary definition (i.e. the first definition) of the term "lie" as shown here
.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4All right, fine
Yes I would like to avoid a meaningless diversion into boolean logic. I intentionally did not write my statement as an equation to avoid a turn down that route, but in your apparent eagerness to find something incorrect in my statements to seize upon, you've done it anyway. A sure sign that the thread is past its prime.
I admitted up front that it was not the strongest example. The problem, as you correcly state it, is that there is so what factor here-- but I would claim that there was a so what factor about all of Rush's material that day. His whole show on the 5th was about such petty and trivial stuff that I just could not even plow through it.
Tell me when he has a good show with some material with some meat on the bone, and I will analyze it.
As far as definition of lie, I am fine with your definition, and I think in this case that Limbaugh made a false statement implying that Obama had neglected his duties, and that his intent was to give that false statement. I cannot prove state of mind, but as long as the standard of "proof" of intent is reasonable, I am confident I can find a more convincing lie in the show of your choice in the future.
---------------------------end of thread---------------------------
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Speaking of analysis and hypotheticals ...
That's fine. I understand it is hard to find cases where Rush even appears to be lying. :) But given your grandstanding statement that you can find a lie in any segment with an accurate transcript I wouldn't have throught that it would be that difficult.
So, if this example doesn't work then pick another as I said above. Go through the archives if you wish instead of picking something from a recent show. Media Matters should be able to help you zero in on something you can work with.
Well I still don't agree that his statement was even false. Obama did tape the ESPN segment and while doing so he was NOT planning the assault. These are known facts which are consistent with Rush's statement. So on the most substantive aspects of Rush's statement it was correct. You are picking around the edges looking for nuance and innuendo to have to paint the statement as being false when on the substance it is true (correct).
How much does the context matter in this case?
I can also challenge this example of yours on an entirely different basis. It is true that Rush said those words but given the context does that even mean that the statement you are complaining about was even his (in the sense that the idea being discussed originated with Rush himself)?
What was the ultimate purpose of Rush's piece? At the core of the piece what was Rush actually doing? He was, as he often does, reading something that someone else had written and analyzing it to discern its underlying meaning and potential implications. That's what Rush does, BTW. He takes political commentaries and breaks them down piece by piece to help people see and understand the underlying meaning of what is being said and to highlight where they are being deceptive (intentional or otherwise).
Aside: This is no different from what we are currently doing here in this thread.
How do I know this is what he was doing? Consider the following paragraph from the transcript:
Here's how I read that paragraph:
In context this isn't actually Rush's statement in the sense that it was his personal point of view. This statement is just summarizing for his audience the gist of the piece he just read. In this instance he stated it from the "Obama took time away from planning the assault to make his picks" perspective but as we have already seen in other parts of the same segment he summarizes it from the opposite "Obama took time away from making his picks to plan the assault" perspective.
So when Rush is summarizing what he thinks some else said is that cause to assign the ideas being discussed to Rush? For example, if Rush was to analyze the Communist Manifesto and express a statement summarizing what he thought it's author was talking about would that make Rush a Communist? Obviously not.
This is obviously a statement made in response to something that Snerdley said in Rush's earpiece. This is a frequent occurance on the show. But what is he actually saying here? He is saying that the premise of the original author, Dan Fogarty, is wrong. He is saying that the previous sentence is actually wrong.
This is where Rush is switching over into expressing his own opinions. Here he is making sport (a.k.a. fun) of Fogarty and his whole premise as being ludicrous on it's face. By comparing Fogarty's piece to something from The Onion, or ScrappleFace, or Saturday Night Live he is calling it a joke and expressing his clear amusement that the authors are actually dead serious in their contention.
So in a cruel twist of fate we now find ourselves in a position where Skymutt is actually aligned with Rush (in the sense that they both agree that sentence Skymutt was complaining about was "wrong") and I am defending the validity of Fogarty's premise (at least to the extent that it was summarized by Rush). :)
Now I suppose that you can argue that Rush's summarization of Fogarty's point was not an accurate reflection of what Fogarty was trying to say, and even if I were to allow that his summarization was inaccurate, does simply being inaccurate make it a lie? Moreover, does it even make it Rush's statement (i.e. his point of view)?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Well, good news, I accidentally found a far more clear cut lie
It is pretty clearly his point of view... you can tell by the way he talks about the golf, which Rush means to highlight as another case of Obama wasting his time.
But it is even more clear in by the fact that Rush in fact in a previous show had criticized Obama for taping the ESPN show "while the world falls apart.
" So, now he just spins it a little differently-- Obama taped the ESPN show, and in doing so, took time off from stuff he should ahve been doing. It is definitely a theme of his.
But lo and behold, I instantly found a better lie on this very same subject IMMEDIATELY, with no work on my part, in the transcript I linked to above :-)
Prepare to have to do some work to explain this one:
THREE TIMES Rush says that Obama directed people to a government website "to find out what's going on in Japan" or "to learn about what's going on in Japan." So this is a point that Rush is emphasizing. I think that goes strongly to prove intent-- this wasn't just a misstatement. Rush's motive for emphasizing this point is to show that while Obama tried to cover his ass while he was wasting his time by mixing in a public service message, his public service message was a big waste of time.
Well, as it just so happened, I watched this video, as I have mentioned in a previous post, and that is just absolutely positively not what Obama directed people to the website for. Here's that Obama said:
So Obama directed people to the website specifically to get them to donate to charities, not to "learn about what's going on in Japan." Please watch the video and see for yourself-- it's in the first minute of the video. You will see that I have not omitted any context.
And notice the snarky tone Rush takes, riffing off his own lie, making fun of Obama directing people to a supposedly redundant government news site. He paraphrases Obama as saying-- "Go to my website to find out what's happening in Japan before you fill out your bracket picks, otherwise you probably would never hear anything about what's going on over there, only if you go to my website. This makes it clear that he lied to make Obama appear stupid, further proving intent.
It was grating to me in reading the May 5th transcript to have Rush ignore the fact that Obama had made an appeal for donations. But now to read this transcript from back when Obama taped the show and to see that Rush absolutely lied, omitting Obama's appeal for donations to earthquake victims and substitutiing an appeal for people to go find out about the earthquake on his website.
This certainly appears to be a really low and scummy lie on Rush's part, it's really tough to find any other way to look at it even putting on my devil's advocate hat.
P.S. This is the list of charities for the Japan disaster
that was linked to from the usaid.gov site. I think it would have been useful if I had known about it at the time. Hard to believe that you couldn't find a charity to like on that long list! So Obama did direct people to exactly what he said he was directing them to-- a place where they could find a list of charities specifically targeted at the Japan disaster.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Reseting Indent
Go to here
.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4More of the same?
This is in reply to this
.
I have to admit, Skymutt, that I am having trouble whipping up any enthusiasm for even bothering to respond to this latest post. Out of that entire segment, which as a Rush 24/7 subscriber I was able to listen to first hand, the one thing that really gets your goat is that when Rush paraphrased what Obama said on ESPN regarding Japan he didn't bother to mention that Obama was talking about charities? Really?
I'm sorry but that point is basically the flea on the feather, of the feather on the bird, of the bird in the nest, of the nest on the leaf, of the leaf on the twig, of the twig on the bough, of the bough on the branch, of the branch on the limb, of the limb on the tree, of the tree in a hole, of the hole in the ground, around which the green grass that is Rush's point grows all around.[1]
If this minor detail is the kind of thing that gets your blood boiling, Skymutt, you should probably find something beside political blogging to occupy your time.
While I don't want to spend a lot of time debunking your claim here I likewise don't want you to claim I couldn't. So I will give you one round of analysis here and then plan to move on. When you claimed that you could catch Rush in lies I assumed you meant on things of some significance. These last two points fail to meet that bar IMHO. If you can come up with soemthing of actual import that Rush lied on let's talk about that.
So, did Ruch actually lie when he said what he said in the transcript you referenced?
To answer that question I will simply go back to the definition that you have already accepted:
[2]
On the issue of whether Rush's paraphrase was "false":
Whether Rush's statement is a truth or a falsehood depends on the meaning of the key phrase, "to find out what's going on in Japan". This phrase is not inherently false in this context. "Find out what's going on in Japan" is roughly akin to "get information related to Japan" which certainly would encompass things like Charities.
Even so, I will admit that this phrasing is not as accurate as it could have been. Whether a vague reference like this can ever rise to the level of being a falsehood is, I think, debatable.
On the issue of "intentionally making a false statement":
Rush said: "Ladies and gentlemen, switching over to ESPN, just to see if it's actually happening. Well, let's see, we got basketball highlights going on. It's sometime in the SportsCenter this hour that the Bamster is to be announcing his picks. And even some Democrats now are beginning to -- (interruption) Oh, it's over? I thought it was at noon today is when it was gonna happen. No, the markets started plummeting this morning when some United Nations guy from 13,000 miles away said it's over in Japan. So we went down immediately 150 points. I thought it was noon. Anyway, Obama's already done it. We had an advance copy of the feed. Now, we thought we would put this in perspective. Obama and his NCAA brackets juxtaposed with media reports of news around the world."
Now this makes it clear that Rush may not have even seen the ESPN piece prior to the running of this segment. It is clear that Rush was confused about when the segment was going to run and he through that they would be running it in real time during the show. So if Rush hadn't even heard the ESPN piece, a clear possibility in this case, then it is hard to make the case that he knowingly mis-paraphrased what Obama actually said. It sounds to me like Rush was simply going in real-time based on the information his staff had put together based on their advance copy of the feed. I am not saying that this is definitively the case but given what I know about how Rush runs his show it is a very plausible scenario. Remember, the main theme here was that Obama is spending time on trivialities while the world is burning. Given the prep material that Rush may have had in front of him from the staff it is completely plausible that all he had to go on was a notation on a sheet of paper that "Obama talks about Japan before making picks." Given a notation like that Rush's statements are exactly how he would have spun the whole thing. Now, this is pure conjecture on my part but to make your case of being a lie YOU need to establish that he definitively knew what Obama said prior to his alleged paraphrasing thereof. The transcript clearly casts doubt on that point.
On the issue of "intent to deceive" the following points seem germane:
One has to first consider the basic questions: Does intentionaly failing to reference charities somehow bolster Rush's larger point? Is that a lynch pin without which Rush's larger point completely falls apart? Answer: Not even close. We could universally substitute "find out about charities for Japan" for "find out what's going on in Japan" and the result is ... nothing. The overall piece is just as effective. So this means Rush have very little incentive to actually lie in this case. Lacking any such incentive goes a long way towards gutting your contention of an "intent to deceive".
If Rush was trying to decive people about what Obama said regarding Japan in the ESPN piece then why did he go out of his way to point out that Obama had actually done a Public Service Announcement as part of that segment. Note that this is a point that you yourself praise in our earlier case. Rush's main point was not the specifics on what Obama actually did or did not say regarding Japan. Rush's point was that Obama was making a PSA (regardless of specifics) merely as a CYA moved based on previous criticism that he was spending time on trivialities like the NCAA March Madness while the rest of the world was in the midst of disasters. Rush's juxtaposition of news reports with Obama's statements made during the ESPN segment made that point very effectively.
If Rush was intent on deceiving people about what Obama said regarding Japan in the ESPN segment then why did he actually play on the air the audio of Obama talking about Japan directly from the ESPN segment. I'm sorry, but if your primary goal is to mislead people about what someone said you typically won't go out of your way to play what they actually said exactly as they said it on national radio. This would seem to go strongly against your contention that Rush intented to deceive anyone on that point.
This last point is the strongest evidence that Rush was not lying in the sense that he was intending to deceive anyone about what Obama had actually said. If Rush didn't want people know know the details of Obama's statement then he would not have played it in its entirety on the air on national radio.
This latter point also makes your point moot from the following persepctive: even if Rush had mischaracterized what Obama said vis a vis Japan in that ESPN piece he clearly corrected the record in that same segment when he actually played Obama's full comment. :)
So, this is all I am going to say on this particular piece. If you can come up with something really BIG where Rush was out and out lying then let's talk. If the best you have is this penny ante crap that doesn't mean squat towards debunking the ediface of Rush's larger points then let's not bother. I mean if Rush is Right on the big issues but all you can find are some minor details to quibble with then I say Rush has won the argument.
--------------------------------------------------
[1] For those who don't catch the reference see this
.
[2] I am relying on the primary definition (i.e. the first definition) of the term "lie" as shown here
.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Big double standard here
Rush obviously seems to think the issue of Obama doing his brackets is important-- he keeps bringing it up on multiple shows and devotes entire segments broadcasting his opinions on it. Rush thinks the fact that Obama directed people to the government website was so important that he repeated it THREE TIMES. But when I bring up that what he says is not accurate, you claim that the item is not of significance.
That's a big double standard, rendering moot all your bloviating about me coming up with penny ante stuff while failing to touch Rush on "big issues." Rush dishes up segment after segment about stuff like Obama picking brackets. NOT MY FAULT-- this is apparently the level of political discourse you dittoheads demand!
If you think the issue is insignificant, why don't you call Rush and tell him, as a paid subscriber, to step up his game and quit devoting time to these insignificant issues, instead of picking on poor old skymutt who has to work with the material that Rush gives him? I mean you told me on 5/5 to pick out a Rush lie from that day. Well, Rush wanted to talk about brakcets that day-- devoted an entire segment to it! What am I supposed to do? I assure you, the other stuff was no better-- one sgement, I recall, was a retread segment where Rush criticized some rube in Detroit who was in line to get government assistance in 2009. Woud that have been more significant? Was that Rush talking about the big issues? Then, when I go to this other day's transcript not even looking for a lie, here is this lie-- or as you put it, a phrase which is "not as accurate as it could have been"-- within the first few words that I read, and Rush repeats it three times! Again, what am I supposed to do-- this is the stuff Rush is talking about!
And while I would agree that when Obama filled out his brackets or what Obama said as a public service announcement during the ESPN taping is not significant, let's be clear that Rush used these events as evidence to try to build his case that Obama is lazy and stupid. When you have millions of listeners every single day, it's pretty darn significant when you use that time to pound the president every single day. The so what excuse doesn't wash-- elections swing on stuff even more trivial than this. Dukakis lost votes because he looked silly in a military helmet.
I'm not going to bore you by responding in depth to your defense, since you have indicated that you do not want to continue on the subject. I'll summarize my response thusly: your defense is unconvincing in the extreme. Your claim that intentionaly failing to reference charities didn't bolster Rush's point. Well of course it did. It wouldn't have sounded so good if he had criticized Obama for appealing for donations to tragedy victims. You claim that it is unclear whether Rush heard the video before he made his statement. Fine, then he is still lying. He statement implies that he knows what was in the video and he doesn't have that knowledge. Not buying the "staff could have provided Rush with vague statement about what Obama said" excuse either, nor do I see it as a mitigating factor if the video was played at some point. Did Rush correct the record when he discovered that his "phrasing is not as accurate as it could have been" when characterizing what Obama said, a phrasing which even you admit is debatably a falsehood? I didn't think so. So let's tack on a charge of a lie of omission as well.
Finally, I offered before to analyze any show of your choice where Rush discussed issues with "meat on the bone"-- in other words, I am willing to find Rush's lies on the big issues. The offer stands-- I'm just not seeing a lot of serious analysis of "big issues" in what I have seen so far, I am seeing nitpicking and pot shotting on trivialities-- and even there, as I have shown here, Rush doesn't even stick to the facts to do that.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
One further aside
Here, you have "trouble whipping up any enthusiasm for even bothering to respond" because the subject matter is "too minor a detail", isn't significant enough, etc. This is coming from you, who triumphantly seized on the very minor and immaterial detail that I had mistakenly substituted World Net Daily for Daily Mail a couple posts back ("Check your facts, son" you said) and unnecessarily brought formal Boolean equations into the conversation to try to prove I was wrong on another very minor statement, totally missing my point in the process. In my experience, if you think you can prove me wrong on something, nothing is too minor for you.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Heh.
The very specific point I am quoting above is probably a fair complaint. I acknowledge that the WND/Daily Mail point I made elsewhere is actually trivial to the point of being comparable to what I see you complaining about in this context ... at least what I perceive that you are complaining about when you stated the following:
I take the highlighted part to be the crux of your complaint and to be the primary substance of the purported lie. Am I correct on that point?
Assuming I am, my lack of enthusiasm here is because the highlighted point is insiginifact w.r.t. the main theme of Rush's overall point. At least that is my humble opinion. Whether Rush correctly or incorrectly paraphrased what Obama said about Japan on ESPN does not, IMHO, affect the impact or validty of Rush's larger point.
I took the overall point being made by Rush in that segment to be, using your own words:
IMHO the highlighted part touches on what I took to be the primary messages Rush was trying to convey to his audience which I will restate as being:
Obama was wasting his time making picks for the NCAA tournament while the world was essentially burning around him. The juxtaposition of the news reports with Obama talking about his NCAA picks made that point very effectively.
Obama was essentially covering his ass in this context by making what was in effect a Public Service Announcement on ESPN, and that he only did so because he was reacting to prior criticism that he was wasting time on trivial projects while the world fell apart.
I consider BOTH of these points to be valid criticisms and I consider them BOTH to be important and worth discussing.
Your claim of Rush having lied is, in effect, merely saying that Rush got the content of the PSA wrong which I claim is wholly irrelevant to #2 above. As far as I am concerned the mere fact that Obama made a PSA is sufficient to make Rush's point.
You don't seem to deny that Obama actually did make a PSA in his ESPN segment (after all you yourself previously praised Obama for having done so). So from my perspective complaining that Rush got the details of the content of the PSA wrong[1] doesn't really invalidate the primary points Rush was making. So when I say your point is unimportant I mean that it doesn't seem to refute the larger argument.
Now, I suppose that all of that is irrelevant to whether Rush had actually lied about the content of the PSA. That would be true enough. But regarding the specifics of that charge I will simply refer back to my previous arguments that he did not actually lie.
So does that clarify what I meant by your chosen lie being unimportant (from my perspective, of course)?
Actually, in all fairness Rush did (a) point out that there was a PSA within the ESPN piece, and (b) he played the PSA in its entirety within the segment. So to claim that Rush omitted Obama's appeal for donations is a bit disingenuous. All politics aside, Rush actually gave that PSA a much wider audience than it otherwise would have had. He actually gave Obama a wider forum from which to pitch that appeal.
OK, fine. The big issues in this particular piece are:
Rush claims that Obama was spending time on trivial topics like making his picks for the NCAA March Madness Tournament while much more important topics of the day could have benefited from his attention.
Obama made the PSA in the ESPN segment to cover his ass while spending time on an otherwise (comparatively) unimportant topic.
Are these lies? If so please state how. If not please pick another show of your choice.
-------------------------------------------
[1] More accurately, that Rush's description of the content was not as accurate as it might have been.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Comparable only in that my misstatement was 1000x more minor
Well, consider this:
So I do not agree that my misstatement and Rush's misstatement are comparable. I think you are trying to use what you would call Jedi Mind Tricks on me here in making a seemingly conciliatory statement to get me to agree that they are comparable!
As for the rest, I disagree with your interpretation as to what are "big" issues in this segment, and what are "insignficant" issues. As I see it, Rush used the segment to further two broad claims:
He used the fact that Obama taped the ESPN segment to further claim #1. He used the "fact" that Obama directed people to a government website to "find out about" the Japan earthquake to further claim #2. The claims are of essentially equal importance; obviously, if Obama truly is either lazy and or stupid, he is unfit to be president and thus should be voted out of office in 2012. You are essentially claiming that it's important if a president is lazy but not important if he is stupid, simply because Rush made a misstatement in the process of making the claim that Obama was stupid, and you want to minimize the significance of the misstatement.
We obviously are not going to agree on the rest, if you are going to insist that Rush really had a valid point that Obama was lazy merely because he taped the bracket segment, and that this is a "big issue." This is ground already covered and I am willing to just agree to disagree on this point.
* I only bring up this argument because I have a recollection that you have made similar arguments before.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Cutting to the chase and reducing digressions.
Comparable in terms of import to the respective topics being discussed, but admittedly not comparable in terms of reach or impact. The same obviously can be said about any of my statements here in terms of potential reach or impact.
Yea, Jedi Mind Tricks. That's me. But you are just like Jabba the Hut and you can see right through them. :)
But of course you do.
You claim the big issues from that segment were (a) Obama is Lazy, and (b) Obama is Stupid.
Now I certainly agree that these are two recurring themes which run through Rush's schtick. This should not be a surprise. These are the same two themes that the Democrats used with respect to George W. Bush. The drum beat back then was "Brush Clearing = Lazy" and "Bush = Stupid". You shouldn't be surprised that the Republicans are picking up a play out of the Democratic play book, though. Turn about IS fair play, after all. Karma is a bitch.[1]
Personally I don't think that the commentary or the content in this segment line up very well with either (a) or (b). Perhaps generally so they do. Either way, none of that has anything to do with whether Rush lied when he made the statement you highlighted. So we seem to be digressing.
From my perspective given our agreed definition of "lie" you have to demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt the following:
Rush knew that his statement was false at the time that he made it.
Rush made the statement with a clear intent to deceive.
So boiling everything down what is your most concise argument in support of each of these?
To be absolutely clear, I think that these can be broken down a bit further as follows:
Rush knew that his statement was false at the time that he made it.
(a) You need to show that the statement is substantively false.
(b) You need to show that Rush KNEW it was false when he said it.
Rush made the statement with a clear intent to deceive.
(a) You need to show how the statement is substantively deceptive.
(b) You need to demonstrate that Rush had the intention of being deceptive.
So unless you can convincingly argue 1a, 1b, 2a, and 2b while at the same time I cannot come up with a reasonable counter argument for any of these then I will continue to claim that Rush didn't lie. The purpose of this latter part is to demonstrate a lack of "reasonable doubt". Reasonable in this context equates to plausible.
I believe that this is all consistent with the traditional standards of evidence here in the US. Do you agree?
Please limit all further discussion to an analysis of the following highlighted portions of this statement:
--------------------------------------------------
[1] This is a corollary to the GoRight Interpretation of the Golden Rule. :)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Guidelines needed
Yes I have no doubt that you will continue to claim this.
You will claim, as you have here, that Rush did not like because it's possible that he played the equivalent of a game of Telephone through his flunkies and that's why he ended up with an inaccurate conception of what Obama had said, and that, as it just so happened, Obama's statement got distorted in such a way that it cast Obama in a negative light and helped Rush to further his theme that Obama is stupid. Well, that's a claim that you could make about virtually any misstatement that Rush makes, and I reject the notion that this possibility, even if plausible, should give him immunity from a charge that he lied.
Any definition of lie that is so strictly and narrowly interpreted that it essentially bars me from "proving" a lie no matter what Rush says is obviously too narrowly drawn and leaves me no possibility of ever convincing you that Rush or anybody else has lied, is too restrictive, and allows a person to lie with impunity.
In my opinion, for instance:
If Rush's process of gathering information for on-air broadcast is so negligent that it cannot possibly reliably provide him with the truth, and he nevertheless states that information as if it is truth, then when he is wrong I believe that it is fair to say that he has lied in some circumstances.
If Rush fails to correct the record when he learns that he has made a material misstatement, as he did in this case, I think that should be considered a lie in some circumstances
If Rush intentionally fails to state something obviously material facts of which he is aware with intent to deceive, then that I believe also can rise to the level of a lie.
A definition of lie that permits all lies of omission, or permits lies of process (repeating the untrue statement of another without a reasonable effort to evaluate the truth of the statement, etc.) is too narrow a definiton, so perhaps you need to clarify your position on these circumstances and perhaps suggest some guidelines.
My test, which I have applied here, is "does Rush use the untruth to materially further an expressed or implied argument?" and "was the truth easily verified?" I would suggest these as a starting point for discussion of guidelines.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
The defining of the bar.
Look, first of all Skymutt it is not my purpose or intent here to make you mad. I fear I may be doing so but if I am misreading between the lines here then I apologize for any slight this statement may imply. You are making a claim that Rush lied. My only intent and purpose in this discussion is to make you back that statement up. It's nothing personal.
OK, this is a true statement but I believe that I have been completely fair and reasonable in setting the bar and you obviously disagree. Since I believe I have been fair and reasonable I somewhat object to your implication that I am trying to somehow pull a fast one here by stacking the deck in the setting of the bar.
So in the interests of clarity on this point let us review how we got to where we are:
I asked you to provide a definition of the term "lie". [1]
I asked you a second time to provide a definition of the term "lie". [2]
As a matter of expedience I then indicated the definition of "lie" that I was using by reference a neutral source. [3]
You indicated that you were OK with the definition I was using. [4]
In an effort to reduce any misunderstandings I provided a (hopefully) clear statement concerning specifically what I was assuming the agreed definition means in the context of this discussion. [5]
Anticipating that step 5 would be insufficient to be crystal clear I refined my statement in step 5 to be specific about what I was assuming you needed to show in order to "prove" your case relative to the agreed definition. [6]
I then set the standard of proof at that which is used in legal contexts: beyond reasonable doubt. And just to be clear about what the threshold for "reasonable" was I indicated that my counter arguments had to be plausible (which is stricter that merely possible but less strict than any and all possibility). [7]
I query you as to whether you agree or not. [8]
Somewhere in that process you obviously decided that I fell off the "reasonable bus" and I would like to understand where that actually was. Please elaborate on where that was so that we can address it.
In addition if you are dissatisfied with the current definition of "lie" then please, by all means, propose your own definition for consideration. I am more than happy to entertain any reasonable definition. I just want it defined up front so that the goal posts don't keep shifting around.
------------------------------------------------------
[1]
"In what way would that have been a lie? What definition of "lie" are you actually apealing to here?"
[2]
"As I asked above, please provide your definition for the word "lie". Until we have that nailed down I am just wasting my time here as your goal posts will just shift all over the place."
[3]
"I am relying on the primary definition (i.e. the first definition) of the term "lie" as shown here 
."
[4]
"As far as definition of lie, I am fine with your definition ..."
[5]
"From my perspective given our agreed definition of "lie" you have to demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt the following:
Rush knew that his statement was false at the time that he made it.
Rush made the statement with a clear intent to deceive.
So boiling everything down what is your most concise argument in support of each of these?"
[6]
"To be absolutely clear, I think that these can be broken down a bit further as follows:
Rush knew that his statement was false at the time that he made it.
(a) You need to show that the statement is substantively false.
(b) You need to show that Rush KNEW it was false when he said it.
Rush made the statement with a clear intent to deceive.
(a) You need to show how the statement is substantively deceptive.
(b) You need to demonstrate that Rush had the intention of being deceptive.
So unless you can convincingly argue 1a, 1b, 2a, and 2b while at the same time I cannot come up with a reasonable counter argument for any of these then I will continue to claim that Rush didn't lie."
[7]
"The purpose of this latter part is to demonstrate a lack of "reasonable doubt". Reasonable in this context equates to plausible."
[8]
"I believe that this is all consistent with the traditional standards of evidence here in the US. Do you agree?"
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Bar defining
No such implication intended-- I do not dispute that you have been fair in defining the term, I am merely now asking for further fairness :-)
I knew that there was likely going to be a possible area of conflict as soon as you came up with the defense that Rush did not lie becasue maybe one of his staff gave him a piece of paper and he merely repeated what they wrote for him on the paper, not knowing that it was wrong. Under one reasonable interpretation of the requirement that "Rush knew that his statement was false at the time that he made it," I concede that unless Rush knew the statement was factually incorrect at the time he made it, it would not meet the standards of that requirement.
But I want to make it clear that I do not want to be confined by that particular interpretation.
I claim that the phrase "Rush knew that his statement was false" should be liberally interpreted to include instances where Rush knew that he didn't know that a statement was true, yet stated the statement as fact, and it turned out to be false. In other words, if Rush paraphrases what Obama said without first hearing what Obama said, but mischaracterizes it because he relied on unreliable secondhand accounts of what Obama said when he could have easily verified the truth, that to me is a knowingly false statement. Otherwise Rush could inoculate himself from all charges of lying by insulating himself from primary sources and relying on hearsay and so forth.
It should also be interpreted to include statements that are technically true but knowingly omit crucial context. If Rush said for instance that "While the world fell apart around him, Obama took three days off" and Obama actually took three days off because he he got his appendix removed and he was in the hospital and Rush knowingly omitted that crucial fact, I believe that this should also be considered a false statement.
In other words, I want some flexibility here. I understand that we don't want goalposts shifting, but lies are often disguised a little bit by accomplished liars, agreed? If Rush is one of those sophisticated liars, we don't want him getting away with recklessly disregarding the truth, do we? We don't want Rush getting away with statements that are true only in a technical sense and are intended to deceive, do we?
Your can rest easy that you have not made me mad by the way. I enjoy our meaningless little debates :-) I call your arguments absurd, impugn your motives, accuse you of moving goalposts, cry foul at your double standards etc., only because I know you can take it, not because I am upset with you.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
We can set the bar ...
where ever you think you need to have it set to be able to make your case.
But before we go moving the goal post I want to resolve something first. I contend that I have set the bar such that you would only have to prove your case "beyond a reasonable doubt". Do you agree or disagree with this characterization of where the bar is currently set in terms of my items 1a, 1b, 2a, and 2b? If not, why not? Please be specific.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4How about this?
Rush knew that his statement was false at the time that he made it.
(a) You need to show that the statement is substantively false.
(b) You need to show that Rush KNEW it was false when he said it.
a statement that is made with reckless disregard for the truth which turns out to be false will be deemed to be a knowingly false statement.
a statement that is true in a technical sense but which knowingly omits essential context will be deemed to be a knowingly false statement.
Rush made the statement with a clear intent to deceive.
(a) You need to show how the statement is substantively deceptive.
(b) You need to demonstrate that Rush had the intention of being deceptive.
It may be necessary to further define other items but it would be a good step to get agreement on this first.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Answer my question first.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Well,
remember that I do not have opportunity to take depositions from Rush's minions etc. so I think that I am entitled to a judgment of a lie if by the evidence it is more likely than not that Rush lied. Reasonable doubt is a pretty steep standard... they had DNA evidence on OJ and he still walked!
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Definitions required.
Define "made with reckless disregard for the truth". If someone makes a statement based on information provided by a trusted empoyee with a history of accuracy which later turns out to be "inaccurate" (not to be confused with "false") is that an example of a "reckless disregard for the truth"?
Define "knowingly false statement". If someone makes a statement based on what they honestly believe is reliable information but it turns out to be "inaccurate" (not to be confused with "false") would that be considered to be a "knowingly false statement" under your defintiion?
Your definition sounds to me like if someone makes a good faith statement based on what they believe is a reliable source and that information turns out to be "inaccurate" (not to be confused with "false") then you want to contend that they KNEW they made a false statement but clearly they didn't KNOW any such thing. So I don't accept that as a reasonable definition of the term "knowingly false statement".
How about this as an alternative: "When someone makes a statement that they know to be false then that statement will be deemd to be a knowingly false statement." That seems more clear to me.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Reckless disregard for the truth & knowingly false statement
A "knowingly false statement is" is simply a statement that meets standard 1(b).
"Disregard for the truth" would involve Rush making a statement of fact without firsthand knowledge from a primary source that the fact is true, when verification would be easy, i.e. a 30 second google search. A primary source is the "horse's mouth" or a major media source. Rush's staff, I argue, is NOT a primary source, but so long as his minions use primary sources and accurately convey information to Rush, notice that there is no problem. If Rush gets led astray by his minons, well, that's on Rush, he needs to hire more trustworthy minions.
Besides, I cannot depose Rush's minions to determine what is going on behind the scenes, so I fear you always just fall back on your theory that Rush is misled by his staff.
I would argue that a misleading statement has the same effect on the audience whether it is Rush's fault or his staff's fault, so they should be treated the same for our purposes.
"Reckless disregard for the truth" would require an aggravating factor, such as using the unverified information to further an attack on someone or something.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Sorry
I disagree that Rush cannot treat trusted staff as reliable sources of information. No national program operates like that. The hosts all rely on their staff to do the heavy lifting. Rush's staff is trustworthy, even IF they were arguably inaccurate in this instance. You may not trrust them but Rush clearly does and that's what counts in terms of proving his intent.
So if the crux of your argument is going to be that Rush didn't personally review the advanced feed when he was clearly expecting to hear it in real time then I disagree that he lied. He had no opportunity to do so. It is not unreasonable to allow or even expect a host to trust what his staff are providing him. What Rush received may not even have been inaccurate. It may have been a simple miscommunication or even a case of bad hand writing.
If Rush were accusing Obama of treason I might be more sympathetic to your point, but for the difference between "see what's happening with Japan" vs "see some charities that you might contribute to for Japan" you get no leeway, IMHO. Part of "what's happening with Japan" would obviously include "learning about charities for Japan" so I don't even believe you have a slam dunk on the "its FALSE" part. That's why I keep stressing inaccurate.
Believe what you want. This thread is way past its prime. Time to move on.
Fine but misleading does not equate to lie by the definition currently on the table.
Too subjective. The term "attack" is vague and to open misapplication in this context. You think Rush was "attacking
" Obama. I think he was "mocking 
" Obama. These are not the same things.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Let me test your commitment to this definition.
Obama said the following:
We now know that there was no firefight. Obama was unarmed when he was killed and so could not have engaged anyone in a firefight. The only person who was armed was killed in a building separate and apart from where Osama bin Laden was killed.
We know these things from a report from CBS news.
So, the President's statement was at a minimum inaccurate and some would say false given what we now know. Given your proposed definition would you argue that Obama lied about the circumstances surrounding Osama bin Laden's death?
Was the President exhibiting a reckless disregard for the truth with this statement? [1]
---------------------------------------------------
[1] Mitigating factor: Obama is exagerating the circumstances surrounding Osama bin Laden's death in an effort to avoid any questions or inquiries that might conclude that he had illegally assissinated him.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4There's nothing even inaccurate about the statement
Obama said:
There's nothing even inaccurate about the statement. There was a firefight during the operation at the compound, and then after that, bin Laden was killed.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
As I suspected.
Obama's statement was clearly suggesting that Osama was killed in or around and/or directly in conjunction with the firefight. Referencing, in the very same sentence, a firefight that clearly took place completely independent of and physically apart from where where Osama was killed is clearly intended to deceive. Obama knew that he would take flak for executing an unarmed civilian (remember the left doesn't recognize the concept of enemy combatants) and so he lied in the hope that no one would notice or find out.
By failing to make clear the circumstances of the relationship between the firefight being referenced and the subsequent killing of Bin Laden Obama intentionally omitted significant and pertinent details required to properly assess the facts of the matter. He, in effect, left the listener with an understanding that is almost completely 100% the opposite to the truth. Thus, I claim that this is an example of Obama violating the following proviso that you sought earlier:
I argue that while his statement can be interpretted as being "technically correct", indeed as you are attempting to do, it is clear that he knew that he was omitting pertinent details because we already know that he was watching the entire thing happen in real time in the situation room. He was no doubt getting live feeds from the helmut cam video and audio from the soldiers in the field as the assault took place. The true nature of what happened would have been immediately known to him. He didn't even have to wait for a briefing.
So if you want to consider knowingly omitted context to be considered lying, then I don't see how you could deny that Obama lied. Do you still disagree?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Boy, what a stretch!
Obama's statement is accurate. There was a firefight on the compound during the operation, then bin Laden was killed. There's really no reason to go any further. It is not essential context that is missing here, but rather detail.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Busted.
And you know it. :-P
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Do i really need to go furhter here?
Suppose I say "after I went to the store, I ate lunch." If you assume that I bought my lunch at the store, by your logic I have misled you, when the reality is you simply read something into my statement that was not there.
And, I will humor you by responding to your laughably absurd theory as to Obama's motivation for this absurd "lie":
Obama was going to be telling the world that he killed Osama bin Laden-- and you believe that he was so worried about this detail that he was going to tell a lie? Really? Like he's really thinking "oh man I have really screwed the pooch this time-- the Navy Seals killed bin Laden and bin Laden's minions only shot at the Seals in one of the buildings on the compound, not in the building where they found bin Laden." Yeah right. Most people would have been perfectly fine with it if there had been no return fire whatsoever-- and rightfully so, I might add. The fact that there was an actual firefight at the compound was just icing. And the details were released, so the nitpickers did what they do anyway, which is nitpick.
I'm going to make a final call on this one-- there really is no reason to take this line further. Respond only if you must-- I have no intentions of further elaborating on the obvious.
--------------------------------end of thread--------------------------
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Like I said.
Busted. :)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Things vs. Charities
Your whole claim of a lie is focused on the fact that Rush said:
as opposed to this:
So if I understand your point correctly, if Rush had actually used the phrases I have substituted then you would no longer consider any of this to be lying? Is that correct? Is my revised version still a lie from your perspective?
Personally I don't believe that my version is any better or worse than Rush's version with respect to it's ability to illustrate the larger points in that segment. You would seem to believe that these changes basically decimate Rush's entire position and THAT is the reason he chose his phrasing the way he did. Do I understand your position correctly in this regards?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Making things crystal clear
Well, we will just have to agree to disagree if you do not think that what Rush said is no worse than your revised version*. I'm already on the record as having the opinion that Rush would have looked pretty bad indeed if he had criticized Obama for making an appeal for donations to earthquake victims, because let's fact it, even if people are more than capable of finding the Red Cross site on their own, a reminder from the President to donate is going to cause some people to actually do it, and therefore is useful.
And, like I have already said, we disagree that it is clear what the "larger points" are here. I have already indicaed that I think the real "larger points" are the broad themes that Rush tries to hammer home every day.
Statements I have made which are already on the record clearly imply that I believe that without the lie, Rush's argument here for "Obama is stupid"-- based on the fact that Obama directed people to a redundant and wasteful government website for Japan earthquake news when they'd have already been bombarded with that news from the MSM-- falls apart on its face if Obama was in fact appealing for charity donations. I have also already indicated that I believe the "Obama is stupid" argument to be a "large point" for Rush.
Hopefully this will make my position crystal clear.
Actually, I think that when you make an inaccurate statement THREE TIMES and then use that statement to imply that someone is stupid, it's arguable that you've really made such an ass of yourself for that moment that any and all "larger points" you were trying to make at the time should be considered null and void! But that's just my opinion.
*Even your revised version, while a vast improvement over what Rush actually said, is not as accurate as it could be, since Obama did not just ask them to merely "go find out about some Japan charities; he asked them to donate to those charities.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Repeating something three times.
You keep harping on the fact that Rush made the same inaccurate statement three times. You are trying to make the argument that because (a) the statement was inaccurate and (b) Rush said it three times that this implies (c) that Rush trying to emphasize the inaccuracy and that this is somehow proof that he lied.
I don't by that argument as being valid. It is a fact that the statement was inaccurate. It is also a fact that Rush stated it three times. These two facts do not, however, imply he was lying.
It is completely plausible that he felt that he had made a perfectly acceptable summarization of Obama's PSA. He may have been wrong but it is completely plausible that he felt he had. So having made what at the time he felt was an acceptable summarization it is completely unsurprising that if he had occasion to reiterate that sumamrization that he would use the same one.
So why would he repeat the summary three times? Because he was trying to stress that Obama had been "forced by prior criticism" to make a PSA at the beginning of the ESPN segment as a "cover your ass" move. Again, the actual content of the PSA was basically irrelevant to the point being made. Obama could have been talking about anything that fits the bill for a legitimate PSA. He might as well have been discussing the need to protect children and puppies and kittens from some dire threat they were facing.
You are free to disagree, but this is not an illogical or even outlandish point on my part. And I believe that this point implies that Rush didn't have any real incentive to lie about the content of the PSA because it simply didn't matter what that content was.
So why do I believe that Rush was merely emphasizing the fact the Obama had made a PSA (as opposed to emphasizing the specific content thereof as you are alleging)?
From this transcript:
From my perspective the highlighted statements represent the main points of this segment as Rush intends them to be perceived. Everything in the segment is directly in support of those two statements. Now these points may in some larger sense play into your contention that Rush is hammering on "Obama = Lazy" and "Obama = Stupid". Fine. I don't disagree.
But as far as the specifics of this segment are concerned the topics being discussed are those highlighted above. And as I keep point out the point Rush was emphasizing is merely that Obama made a PSA. What the PSA actually was about doesn't matter to this overarching points of the piece.
Also consider the following from later in the same transcript:
So you see Rush emphasizing the content of the PSA. I see him emphasizing that Obama was only doing the PSA to legitimize what he was doing. I see Rush mocking Obama for having to cave in to the criticism regarding his trivial pursuits. Who's right? Well obviously you think you are and I think I am. So I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I don't disagree...
...that he was making the point that Obama's PSA was a CYA response to critiicism. If you want to say that that was Rush's main point, I'm not going to argue the point any further. You are entitled to your interpretation.
Nevertheless, he did also imply that Obama bumbled his PSA by directing people to a redundant news site. And the only way that he could do that, I argue, was to mischaracterize what Obama said, which he did
THREE TIMESMORE THAN THREE TIMES!And, as you point out below, he continued to mischaracterize what Obama said right after he heard it-- which eliminates your defense that a staffer might have made the mischaracterization and slipped him a note.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
I was wondering when you would notice ...
that little nugget I spoon fed you. :) And yes I really DID know that it was there.
OK, so we are agreed. Rush made the inaccurate summarization at least one time after we know he heard it. So the staffer defense is moot.
Care to respond to the other posts now, please?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Thank you for the spoon feeding :-)
You are a scholar and a gentleman! I admit that I did not read the entire segment, if that matters. Still have not read the entire segment in fact. There may be a gold mine of more lies down there at the bottom! ;-)
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Since we are going over the rest of the transcript ...
looking for other clues. How about this little bit?
Now that sounds to me sort of like he hadn't actually seen the Obama piece at all BEFORE he made his first three utterances of the inaccurate summary. And look at that last sentence. "We" (I assume he means his staff) "had it in time to put together this montage."
Sounds sort of like someone ELSE had already gone through and prepared the montage. So, Rush hadn't seen or heard it yet. Hmmm. Interesting. So how did he even know that Obama had done a PSA in there? I assume that a staffer must have fed him that information in the description of the montage. Do you have any alternative explanations for this?
So, I spoke too soon. The staffer defense appears to be back on the table WITH EVIDENCE that he was, in fact, flying by the seat of his pants prior to this point in time based solely on staffer input as to what Obama had said during the ESPN piece.
Now I can't verify WHEN the ESPN piece ACTUALLY aired, but I do see a reference as it potentially being between NOON and 12:30. Where might Rush have been during that time? It is clear in the segment that Rush was intending to cover the piece in real time:
I went back and listened to the beginning of that very show. March 16, 2011. This quote occurs about 5 mintues after the open of the show which would mean some time between 12:05 and 12:10.
Rush spent the first five minutes of that show discussing the top news headlines of the day: something about Charlie Sheen as being the top news story on Yahoo, and he then went into a story or two about the Nuke Plant and "what was happening in Japan". This makes perfect sense as a setup for the piece he is intending to do. But he is clearly suprised by the fact that Obama's bit is already done since he was clearly wanting to "catch him in the act" of wasting time on ESPN for dramatic effect. So that's when they switched to the backup plan of using the montage from the advanced feed.
Sorry, Skymutt, but with this new evidence I have to say it is clear to me beyond any reasonable doubt that Rush had NOT heard the Obama piece prior to his having to backpeddle to save that segment using a montage prepared by someone else instead of the live feed he was clearly expecting. And as such he had no way to know if his summary prior to playing the Obama montage was inaccurate because he was off talking about Charlie Sheen and Japan during the time that Obama's bit was aired.
Do you even dispute this at this point?
So while the fourth usage which came just after he had played Obama's own recording can't claim staffer input as an excuse the three earlier ones can and it looks to be almost undeniable to me.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4A simple possible alternative explanation
Instead of a staffer passing him a note, Rush's minions could have easily played the clip of what Obama said for Rush in his headphones while the montage played. Obama's PSA only lasted a few seconds. From your first quoted excerpt it is unclear whether or not Rush heard a clip of Obama's PSA even before that; it is only clear that he did not see the entire ESPN segment.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
I don't understand ...
When are you talking about? When the montage was playing Rush was no doubt hearing it as it played but that woukldn't affect the earlier statements.
Watching the video of the opening of that show up through where we are talking about I see no evidence of Rush being distracted listening to something in his earpiece. When he is getting information over the earpiece you can usually tell because his speach pauses even if he doesn't acknowledge that someone is talking to him. This is also contradicted by his statement that he didn't know what was in the Obama segment.
There was no real time for them to have done so IMHO. Rush was expecting to do the Obama bit in real time and was clearly back pedding to save the segment with the montage that had already been prepared and he no doubt had a written summary of the available soundbites as he always does. He asks for them to be played by number:
Do you really find it hard to believe that his staff provide him with a written list of the available sound bites along with a brief summary thereof? I have no idea of the level of detail in that description but I wouldn't be at all suprised if they are very short summaries. YMMV.
So if you are talking about his staff feeding him the Obama PSA in his earpiece while he is simultaneous talkinig in a fluid fashion on an unrelated topic for 5 minutes prior to launching into this bit, then I don't buy your theory as being plausible.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4The montage was played...
...right before Rush mischaracterized Obama's statements. So if his staff played him the clip in his headphones during the montage, then he would have heard it before he started talking again. I don't see why Rush necessarily had to be hearing the montage.
It would make sense that he would talk about the stuff he had just been fed by his staff as well.
Agreed that it is unlikely that he can hear stuff in his headphones and fluidly talk about something else at the same time. My theory does not require that.
And as I argued in myprevious comment, I do not agree that it is even clear that Rush did not hear the Obama PSA clip before that-- it is only clear that he did not hear the whole ESPN show.
No-- but it is equally plausible that he heard the sound bite, given the evidence. Look at the sequence of events-- the montage was a clear opportunity for Rush to be piped the clip.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Which montage are you talking about?
The only montage I have discussed thus far is the one where he plays Obama's PSA. So I am confused about why you think they would be piping him the PSA at the same time he would otherwise be hearing the same thing over the normal audio.
You seem to be talking about something else. Are you talking about the juxtaposed soundbites?
The soundbites that occur just prior to his first paraphrase of the PSA start at 5:58 into the show and end at 6:28. During that time Rush is visibly reading from the show prep sheets on the desk in front of him. His head is tilted down and he is clearly reading. There is a 3 second period during that time where he looks up and to the right like he is thinking or possibly listening. I take it to be him thinking about what he wanted to say about something he had just read but clearly he could have been listening to something. He could have also been listening while reading as well but there is no way to tell.
At any rate when he starts talking about the PSA he picks up a different sheet of paper and is looking at or reading something on that while he is talking about the PSA. He later has the same piece of paper in his hand when he makes the third summary and gestures at it while he says let's go to audio sound bite 24. You can make what you want of that but I am convinced that he is looking at the soundbit list while talking about the PSA all three times.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Yeah the juxtaposed soundbites
I obviously can't see what you are seeing, but even if he is reading a list of soundbits, he could have been played the soundclip in his headphones. Or, the soundbit list could have included Obama's exact words, for that matter. I am willing to accept your characterization of the video you see but I don't see how it is not plausible that Rush knew what Obama said by the end of the sound bites.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
You are the prosecution. I am the defense.
Fine. I can certainly accept that it is possible that Rush was played the soundbite during the juxtaposed montage as you suggest. I can even go so far as it is plausible in the sense that I believe that you could and often do actualy do such things. Where we part ways is at probable. I think that given the evidence I have seen and described it is more probable that he was unaware of the exact phrasing of Obama's PSA and that he was relying on a summary on the sound bite sheet or something similar.
But in the end it doesn't matter. You are the prosecution. I am the defense. Clearly your account has to be plausible, but if I can provide alternative plausible accounts on the key points then you failed to make your case. It sucks to be the prosecution.
And in this case I have already cited evidence to suggest, IMHO, that my account is more probable than yours which is just icing on the cake for me in terms of creating reasonable doubt.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4On the playing of Obama's PSA.
You seem to want to ignore the fact that Rush played Obama's PSA in its entirety on the air as part of that segment. So let me ask you a couple of questions in that regard.
Do you agree that Rush played Obama's PSA in its entirety on the air?
If Rush was intending to deceive people about the content of Obama's PSA why do you think that Rush played the whole thing on the air?
Was Rush attempting to somehow deceive people by playing the PSA as it was actually recorded by Obama? If so, please elaborate on how that would work.
Let's assume for this discussion that you are correct and that Rush actually did bald face lie about the content of the PSA. This would leave us in a situation where Rush basically bald faced lied and then proceeded to play the actual content he was lying about exactly as Obama had himself recorded it. Under these circumstances do you believe that it is possible for reasonable listeners to be mislead or confused about what Obama actually said and what the actual content of the PSA was?
Do you believe that Rush understands the (to me obvious) implications of the scenario described in 4 above?
I think that these are reasonable questions to ask you to address within the larger context of the overall segment.
Note that this is a whole new thread of discussion which is outside the context of the ongoing discussion of whether Rush lied about the content of the PSA as you allege.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Answers
Answers:
1. Yes, he played the source audio if the transcript is accurate.
2. Intellectual contempt for his audience? Gall? Maybe Rush's audience don't mind that he lies about Obama?
3. If Rush lies along with the source audio, then I do not have that big a problem with it, although it still is arguably a lie. If he lies more than few minutes before or after the source audio, then it starts getting to the point where the fact that he played the source audio is becoming irrelevant as a mitigating factor. People listen in their cars on short trips etc. and some will hear the lie and not the source audio. That would have happened in this case.
4. I think Rush's loyal listeners really do not care for the most part. They listen to hear Rush trash liberals-- truth optional. To me, he did tell a bald faced lie. I guess Rush's loyal listeners don't mind-- he's lying about a guy they do not like, so it is okay to them I guess. I have a generalized view of right wingers that they tend to have a general "ends justify the means" philosophy, and letting lies pass as long as they are the right kind of lies fits in with my thesis*.
5. I think Rush understands his audience well, and knows that he has license to be loose with the facts. That's why he lies every single show!* :-D
**I admit that we have not analyzed a significant sample size to prove this yet, hence the smiley.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
The rest of the story ...
... err ... transcript
.
OK, so let me also ask you about this part of the transcript. Do the portions highlighted above, in your opinion of course, accurately reflect what Obama said as part of his PSA?
Note that these are soundbites in Obama's own voice taken directly from the ESPN segment we are discussing.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Evidence of a lie of omission
The portions of the transcript that represent Obama's voice accurately represent what he said. I will have to trust that they were audible to Rush's listeners.
What I am seeing here is Rush basically going with the same inaccurate paraphrase. "[G]o to my website and figure out what the heck's going on in Japan" is basically the same parahrase Rush had made earlier, and here he has benefit of hearing Obama directly.
Why not "go to my website and donate to earthquake victims"? Why does Rush make what even you admit is an inaccurate paraphrase for at least the FOURTH TIME after having the benefit of hearing the video? One argument might be that Rush stuck with his earlier paraphrase to be consistent with himself, even in the face of his earlier inaccuracy. That is conjecture, however.
Now, of course, you can argue that he played Obama's own words, and that makes everything all right. But he didn't play theaudio accompaniment when he made the inaccurate statement the first three times, so those listeners who had the radio on in their car and only heard that part of the segment but not the later part would not have had the benefit of hearing what Obama said. I don't know how much time lapses beteen the earlier paraphrases and this paraphrase but it appears that it would have been a considerable span of time.
So bottom line, the fact that he plays the clip now does not absolve him of the earlier lie. The bigger issue is that he definitely heard Obama's exact words and did not set the record straight on his earlier inaccuracy-- a lie of omission.
Do you think if Rush lies about somthing Obama says and then plays Obama saying what Obama actually said a half hour later or whatever, that it's then not a lie?
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Ah yes.
But is it plausible conjecture? As in you could actually believe someone would do that? Or even easier to believe, that they didn't even think about it at all and having said it three times already the words just automatically came out the same way?
Once you have internalized the phrasing it becomes semi-automatic. Especially when you are multi-tasking as Rush is always doing. He's reading papers, listening to Snerdley in the ear piece, talking to callers, etc.
Objection! Assumes facts not in evidence. We have established that the summary was inaccurate, NOT that it was a lie. We are still setting the bar before that can be tested. Please keep your cart to the REAR of your horse. :)
Irrelevant. Goes to intent. The mere fact that Rush chose to play the actual PSA at all shows his actual intent. The fact that the personal circumstances of a small portion of his listening audience may prevent them from hearing the entire segment does not alter Rush's intent one bit.
I reject any definition of the word "lie" that relies on the personal circumstances of unnamed persons at unidentified locations at unknown times as the basis of its validity. :)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Yes it is plausible
Sure, it is plausible conjecture. By remaining consistent with himself, Rush could for instance (falsely) claim that he was just generalizing what Obama said, and that his paraphrase was technically accurate-- an argument you have made in thread, actually. He's sticking with his lie because the thinks his listeners would buy his alibi, in other words.
Heh... how about you just read "alleged lie" when I type "lie"? We understand over here that you have not conceded that Rush lied.
So do you believe that Rush can play source audio, then mischaracterize it ten minutes later, an hour later, a day later, a week later, a month later, or even a year later, and so long as he played the source audio once, no mischaracterization can be a lie? So I'm going to find Rush totally distorting something else Obama said, and you are going to find a transcript where Rush played the source audio a month before, and you are going to use that to claim that it is not a lie?
I don't think I can accept that. You know that Rush's audience turns over, I know it, and Rush knows it. The makeup of the audience is going to be significantly changed even 15 minutes before or after a source audio clip is played. And we know that Rush has a huge audience.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Over the top.
Do you really expect a response to this? This is CLEARLY not what happened. It was minutes at most so the fact that you are now introducing days, months, and years is absurd. I'll go back to the source and get back to you on the actual time lapse for the record here, although from my perspective the time lapse has been rendered moot by new evidence entered above.
Actually I don't know anything of the sort, and I am surprised that you make the claim with such confidence. How do you know this?
For my part I am a 24/7 subscriber so I listen to these on my schedule, not Rush's. So yes, I have the full segment at my disposal along with several weeks previous for full shows and lots of audio segments from various dates. Take this one for instance, I have both the full show and the spliced segment.
UPDATE:
At 08:15 into the show:
At 37:07 into the show:
While watching the video of where Rush is making the statement at 08:15 into the show it is clear that he is reading something on a paper in his hand. I don't think he is reading word for word but he is clearly reading the paper and concentrating as he is speaking.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4It would be nice to know where you draw the line
So "minutes" of lapse is okay for you but you object when I mention a lapse of as much as "days." That narrows it down a little bit for me.
All I wanted is acknowledgement that there is something similar to a half life of the mitigating effect of playing source video, and an opinion on how long that half life is. I would argue that the half life is measured in minutes-- not only does the audience turn over, but people who keep listening quickly forget the details of what has been said, and thus would oftten not catch inconsistencies in things they hear more than a few minutes apart.
You have implicitly agreed that there is a half life also. So how long do you think it is? That's all I'm asking.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Within the same "segment".
Rush does his show in "segments". He picks a topic and talks about it until he is tired of it. There may be commercial breaks in the middle of a segment. Most segments will be under 1 hour but some may span an entire show. Longer segments are rare.
So as long as Rush is continuously on the same topic (excluding commercials) I argue that anything he does or says within that segment can be used to argue his intent for that segment.
But I am now of the firm opinion that the time lapse in this case has been rendered moot by evidence that Rush clearly couldn't have know for sure that the paraphrase was accurate. The first time he heard what Obama actually said is when he played it himself on the air.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Well
Fine, I can agree that source audio within a segment should be able to be used to argue intent, but I still think the argument weakens as the time lapse between the mischaracterization and the source audio increases within the segment. And the playing of the source audio is only one mitigating factor that needs to be wwighed against the other evidence. Rush could mischaracterize source audio so egregiously that it could rise to the level of a lie, even if done in real time.
As for whether Rush had clearly not heard Obama's PSA, I am not convinced, see my response upthread.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Yes,
it is.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
Hey Specter.
How have you been?
Regarding the legitimacy of the most recently released version of Obama's birth certificate it clearly could be an accurate representation of the original, but it is also clearly not a straight image of the original. It has been photo edited. I make no claims as to whether that editing altered the substance of the information, or not.
My point is simply that because the document has been photo edited there remains the possibility that it may have been altered and, therefore, it is no substitute for releasing a direct and unaltered lossless image of the true original as it exists in the archives in Hawaii ... assuming that it truly exists. If the goal is to debunk the conspiracy theorists then this release does nothing to alter the current state of affairs. A true lossless and unedited image of the original document needs to be released if the conspiracy theorists are to be debunked in any substantial measure beyond the staus quo.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Obvious troll is obvious
n/t
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,