Sweet. Not that Lefties will even understand it (Jim, Chris, Thomas, Bob-1?…………………………………..crickets).
Kurtz is clever, but the statements he lists still don’t amount to an apology, unless you start from the assumption that the US media operates with special privileges as a public trust, and therefore owes the public a higher standard of behavior than what it is confessing in Kurtz’s litany of self-criticism.
But Kurtz would be the first to insist that the US owes no such debt to other nations, much less the Arab world, so his analogy falls apart.
unless you start from the assumption that the US media operates with special privileges as a public trust
We would since they are providing a service to customers who pay either directly with money or by suffering through commercials/ads to listen/read the news.
But Kurtz would be the first to insist that the US owes no such debt to other nations, much less the Arab world
What’s the relationship by which the US government would owe such a debt? The US does provide here and there some modest services to other countries, but that’s not the purpose of the US. So there isn’t the same connection between the US and other countries as there is between a media outlet and the customers who use that media outlet.
Karl: you are agreeing with me.
Thank you for that elaboration. Given that it was President Obama making the related foreign policy statements not Kurtz, then it is Obama’s actions and behavior in context that decide whether those statements are “apologies” or not.
The GOP doesn’t like what Obama said, but instead of disputing the truthfulness of his statements they want to label them as apologies, and rule them out of bounds. But if Presidents should never apologize, and making factually correct statements about US history is tantamount to apologizing, then you’ve ruled out having Presidents speak honestly about our history. Which, come to think of it, is doubtless the whole point of the exercise.
What does the truthfulness of his statements have to do with whether they are apologetic or not?
You seem to be saying, “Obama speaks the truth, therefore his words can not be construed as apologies.”
Obama went around the world trashing the USA and you are cool with it.
You cant have it both ways. You cant agree with what Obama said trashing the country and then when people who disagree point out he was being apologetic in trashing our country, say Obama’s words mean something different.
Obama went around the world trashing the USA and you are cool with it.
No, he didn’t. Name one thing he said that “trashes” the USA, or apologizes for the USA.
Umm you don’t think Obama said anything negative about the USA? No wonder you don’t think any of it was apologetic.
I could provide you the quotes, links to videos, and sentence diagrams but it wont make a difference to you.
Name one thing he said that “trashes” the USA, or apologizes for the USA.
Links are right there in the article.
I kinda got the impression that he was copy/paste/find/replacing from somebody’s speech; at least, that would explain some of the otherwise slightly-odd verbiage.
Sweet. Not that Lefties will even understand it (Jim, Chris, Thomas, Bob-1?…………………………………..crickets).
Kurtz is clever, but the statements he lists still don’t amount to an apology, unless you start from the assumption that the US media operates with special privileges as a public trust, and therefore owes the public a higher standard of behavior than what it is confessing in Kurtz’s litany of self-criticism.
But Kurtz would be the first to insist that the US owes no such debt to other nations, much less the Arab world, so his analogy falls apart.
unless you start from the assumption that the US media operates with special privileges as a public trust
We would since they are providing a service to customers who pay either directly with money or by suffering through commercials/ads to listen/read the news.
But Kurtz would be the first to insist that the US owes no such debt to other nations, much less the Arab world
What’s the relationship by which the US government would owe such a debt? The US does provide here and there some modest services to other countries, but that’s not the purpose of the US. So there isn’t the same connection between the US and other countries as there is between a media outlet and the customers who use that media outlet.
Karl: you are agreeing with me.
Thank you for that elaboration. Given that it was President Obama making the related foreign policy statements not Kurtz, then it is Obama’s actions and behavior in context that decide whether those statements are “apologies” or not.
The GOP doesn’t like what Obama said, but instead of disputing the truthfulness of his statements they want to label them as apologies, and rule them out of bounds. But if Presidents should never apologize, and making factually correct statements about US history is tantamount to apologizing, then you’ve ruled out having Presidents speak honestly about our history. Which, come to think of it, is doubtless the whole point of the exercise.
What does the truthfulness of his statements have to do with whether they are apologetic or not?
You seem to be saying, “Obama speaks the truth, therefore his words can not be construed as apologies.”
Obama went around the world trashing the USA and you are cool with it.
You cant have it both ways. You cant agree with what Obama said trashing the country and then when people who disagree point out he was being apologetic in trashing our country, say Obama’s words mean something different.
Obama went around the world trashing the USA and you are cool with it.
No, he didn’t. Name one thing he said that “trashes” the USA, or apologizes for the USA.
Umm you don’t think Obama said anything negative about the USA? No wonder you don’t think any of it was apologetic.
I could provide you the quotes, links to videos, and sentence diagrams but it wont make a difference to you.
Name one thing he said that “trashes” the USA, or apologizes for the USA.
Links are right there in the article.
I kinda got the impression that he was copy/paste/find/replacing from somebody’s speech; at least, that would explain some of the otherwise slightly-odd verbiage.
Brilliant!