Login/Sign Up




Is Correctly Quoting Clinton Disgracefull?
Politics


Why Drudge is a Disgrace
...
donmega
Sep 18, 2007
3 votes
3 debaters
8
4


+ Add Argument

1
No, that is what reporters are supposed to do.


donmega
Sep 18, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
The Headline:
HEALTH INSURANCE PROOF REQUIRED FOR WORK
-------------------------------
What Hillary Clinton actually said:
She said she could envision a day when "you have to show proof to your employer that you're insured as a part of the job interview — like when your kid goes to school and has to show proof of vaccination,"
----------------------
The reaction from the left: Bitching, moaning, calling names.
Joe Klein, remember him? He's the guy that wrote Primary Colors anonymously, then lied about it. Now he calls honesty disgraceful...

 
donmega
Sep 18, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: thales Show

The Headline: Health Insurance Required for work
The Quote:She said she could envision a day when "you have to show proof to
your employer that you're insured as a part of the job interview
— like when your kid goes to school and has to show proof of
vaccination,"

How is that misleading? Showing proof of your child's immunizations is a requirement.

 
donmega
Sep 18, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: thales Show

I read that article, nothing in it directly contradicts the headline.

 
donmega
Sep 18, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: thales Show

Yet...

 
donmega
Sep 19, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: dirtpatch Show

That may well be the meaning intended, but, that is not what she said.
Is name calling really the best you can do?

 
donmega
Sep 19, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: dirtpatch Show

I never accused you of calling me names, I merely pointed out your use of "pudge" and "blowhards" is name calling, and, btw, childish.

 
donmega
Sep 19, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: dirtpatch Show

She said she could envision a day when "you have to show proof to
your employer that you're insured as a part of the job interview
— like when your kid goes to school and has to show proof of
vaccination,"
Do schools provide vaccinations to kids that don't have them?.... NO! Being a father, I know that. How then, can the statement:you have to show proof to
your employer that you're insured as a part of the job interview
— like when your kid goes to school and has to show proof of
vaccination," be taken any differently then that it is a prerequisite?

 
donmega
Sep 19, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: dirtpatch Show

I just reread the interview and have a question. What part of her whole statement contradicts the headline?


 
donmega
Sep 20, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: dirtpatch Show

The school will tell you where to go to get free or reduced price vaccinations, but, will NOT allow that child to attend classes without proof of immunizations. You can keep saying it, but, it doesn't change that you are wrong.

 
+ Add Argument

2
Yes, how dare he?


thales
Sep 18, 2007
2 convinced
Rebuttal
I'm a little torn on the phrasing of this one--because of course accurate quoting is not disgraceful. Misleading article titles, on the other hand, absolutely are.

Anyone remember the 2000 campaign, when the New York Times ran an article titled "McCain calls Christian right 'evil'"? And how that's not only not what he said, but a complete distortion of his intent? That was shameful. So is this.

 
thales
Sep 18, 2007
2 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: donmega Show

And by the way--selectively pulling from the article the one closest thing that could remotely be construed as relating to its title while leaving out the rest that directly contradicts it? I'm not so conflicted as to which category that falls under.

 
thales
Sep 18, 2007
2 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: donmega Show

Except...that it's NOT ACTUALLY REQUIRED?

 
thales
Sep 18, 2007
2 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: donmega Show

If every time someone said, "I can envision a day when..." it made news, we would never get to read anything else. And titling it as if that day were here is irresponsible "journalism."

I know you're always on the prowl for liberals' unfairness, but if this is the best you can do, it's really time to give up the chase.

 
dirtpatch
Sep 18, 2007
2 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: donmega Show

The meaning behind that statement is this,, if you cant provide an employer proof the employer will have to insure you.

Not as you and pudge are making it out that you wont be able to work without it.

I know you didnt know better,, because you just believe what blowhards tell you,, but he was being intentionally dishonest

 
dirtpatch
Sep 19, 2007
2 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: donmega Show

when did i call you a name in this debate?

and yes, that is what she said,, but in context with the rest of her "speech" her meaning is apparent.
He intentionally picked a part of it whos context relied on another part, then neither gave the whole thing so as the context could be derived or explained what she meant in light of leaving out the whole statement, thats dishonest



 
dirtpatch
Sep 20, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: donmega Show

First off, read the whole interview.
second off,, if a person goes to a school and they dont have vaccinations for thier kids,, and cant afford them,, yes the school will set it up for the child to be vaccinated.

And as far as "pudge" and "blowhard" ,,
yeah,, your right wing heroes drudge,limbaught,et al. never do anything like that do they?

 


Use these tags to find similiar debates

britain death government politics uk 2008 2009 9/11 abortion Afghanistan america Arizona AU bad Baha BBC bias Biden boycott Britain bush canada capitalism Censorship cheney children China Christianity church cia Clinton Cold War commonwealth communism Communist congress conservative conservatives conspiracy Constitution Corruption country crime death debate defeat Democracy democrat Democrats detention discrimination drugs economics economy education election elections Ethics EU Europe Euthanasia evil Fascism feminism Fight France Frankie freedom Freedom of speech freedoms french gay Gaza george bush Georgia global global warming goverment government Great Britain Guantanamo Bay guns Health Health Care Healthcare Hillary hillary clinton History Hitler homosexual human rights illegal illegal immigration immigration india iran Iranian presidential election iraq islam Israel japan Jewish juggernaut justice Karl law laws legal legislation liberal lies marijuana marriage mccain media Medicine mexico middle east military monarchy money moral morals Mugabe Muslim Muslims news North Korea nuclear nukes Obama objective Oil opression Osama pakistan Palestine Palin Panda paradox parliament peace petition philosophy policy politicians Politics polygamy power president Prime Minister prisoners protest Public Affairs punishment queen race racism religion republican Republicans revolution right rights Rove russia Saddam Sarkozy Security sex socialism Society South Korea sovereignty Supreme court tax taxes terror terrorism terrorist terrorists Tibet torture Troop U.S. uk un united nations united states us usa vancam vote Votes voting war washington weapons wmd women world wrong