Jim Acosta Thread

[_canpakes]

subs, just let us know when you decide upon what defines ‘professional qualities’ given that no conventional measure coordinates with your need to judge by how offended your personal ideology is. ; )

[_Water Dog]

Sooooo... you got nothing

That's what I was thinking... about you. This is one of those burden of proof scenarios. If you say Trump's behavior breaks with a norm, it's your job to prove what the norm is first. I'm not the one who's freaking out about an insufferable journo losing privileges due to his bad behavior. If you want to argue that hard pass access to the white house is a constitutional right, go ahead, make your case.

[_subgenius]

subs, just let us know when you decide upon what defines ‘professional qualities’ given that no conventional measure coordinates with your need to judge by how offended your personal ideology is. ; )

I have already done so on this thread and I apologize that i wasn't more thorough in walking you through the rather simple concept.
for starters,
here:
viewtopic.php?p=1156335#p1156335
and here:
viewtopic.php?p=1156056#p1156056

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Sooooo... you got nothing

That's what I was thinking... about you. This is one of those burden of proof scenarios. If you say Trump's behavior breaks with a norm, it's your job to prove what the norm is first. I'm not the one who's freaking out about an insufferable journo losing privileges due to his bad behavior. If you want to argue that hard pass access to the white house is a constitutional right, go ahead, make your case.

I remember Obama revoking access on occasion, and don't remember anybody accusing infringement of constitutional rights over it.

When you say 'on occasion', you really ought to provide examples. Perhaps the board could use some balance on this thread. And some facts.

- Doc

I don't know how or why you went full subgenius, but man...

- Doc

[_subgenius]

I don't know how or why you went full subgenius, but man...

- Doc

One, don't throw that "full subgenius" around lightly because it loses its value...
and Two,
How about you watch more than 3 seconds of Acosta, ignire his eyebrow posturing, and think of something more professional about him than "gee whiz, he went to college".

[_canpakes]

subs, just let us know when you decide upon what defines ‘professional qualities’ given that no conventional measure coordinates with your need to judge by how offended your personal ideology is. ; )

I have already done so on this thread and I apologize that i wasn't more thorough in walking you through the rather simple concept.
for starters,
here:
http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/vie ... 5#p1156335
and here:
http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/vie ... 6#p1156056

This doesn’t do it. Even given that these ‘defining qualities’ of journalistic professionalism are arbitrarily decided by yourself, Acosta cannot be shown as violating any of your arbitrary rules. You can’t even manage to rig your own game to make it work for you.

I don't know how or why you went full subgenius, but man...

- Doc

One, don't throw that "full subgenius" around lightly because it loses its value...
and Two,
How about you watch more than 3 seconds of Acosta, ignire his eyebrow posturing, and think of something more professional about him than "gee whiz, he went to college".

‘Full subgenius’ never loses its humor value.

As for Acosta, he seems to rate well with the folks that matter. I don’t think that he is aware of the anonymous fellow going full subgenius on an unknown message board and whining about the fact that he can’t figure out what professional credentials are.

Acosta still seems to be living in your head and giving you fits, though. And CNN has now forced Sanders and the Prez to toss their doctored-video-supplied allegation of manhandling interns in favor of the new and pathetic “I was disrespected by the Press” argument.

What a snowflake this President is.

[_subgenius]

Acosta cannot be shown as violating any of your arbitrary rules. You can’t even manage to rig your own game to make it work for you.

but he is adhering to your arbitrary rules, got it!

As for Acosta, he seems to rate well with the folks that matter.

Clearly his empty press pass holder agrees with you.

...can’t figure out what professional credentials are.

If only someone would <again> explain what professional QUALITIES are....
well, the good news is that CNN is suing the White House over the whole incident, and that is a clear indication that regardless of the court decision Trump has already won.

[_canpakes]

Acosta cannot be shown as violating any of your arbitrary rules. You can’t even manage to rig your own game to make it work for you.

but he is adhering to your arbitrary rules, got it!

If only I had made up an arbitrary list as you had. Goodness knows how your imagination conjures such things. But perhaps you can use this handicap by applying for work at a White House that claims victory for being exposed as purveyors of doctored videos and for being so handily maneuvered into stumbling over their story by some random CNN reporter.

...can’t figure out what professional credentials are.

If only someone would <again> explain what professional QUALITIES are....

Surely that explanation isn’t going to come from a President who lacks the basic self-control to avoid being goaded into a public shartfest over being asked a question at a press conference, or who posts childish gifs on his Twitter feed sporting themes of beating up on reporters.

I think I’m beginning to see why you’re experiencing difficulty expressing yourself on the topic. ; )

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I think subgenius inadvertently, of course, just provided you with a list of "professional qualities" he finds relevant.

Never believe that Trump supporters are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words.

Trump supporters have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of normal people. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but through foolishness.

If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past, and they'll go watch the world burn on a beach with their wife, who is hot, and they like to “F” a lot. A LOT. It is not that they are afraid of being convinced. They fear only to appear ridiculous by being embarrassed thus losing hope of winning over some third person to their side.

- Doc

[_Chap]

on a beach with their wife, who is hot, and they like to ____ a lot. A LOT.

I am sure that there is no-one on this board who talks in such a pathetically boastful way ... Oh, wait ...