Totalitarian White House: Fires dude for an innocent twitter comment

[theDoctorisIn]

It depends on your source some do think it is a word and others do not. "In fact, opinionate has appeared in American newspapers regularly (though not frequently) in the past couple of decades. Only The New York Times seems to have banned it (except for on the Web, wher they have a blog called ``The Opinionator"); a Nexis search turns up just one citation, from 1983, when William Safire noted that columnists ``earn their living by opinionating.""...."And opinionate seems to be taking a similar path; it's not, usually, a mere synonym for opine, but a word for habitual or professional opinion-mongering. You may wish we didn't need such a word, but with all the bloviating and spinning and punditing going on, a not-too-pejorative verb for the activity would come in handy. So how about two cheers for opinionate? We could do a lot worse."......Who knew...

A matter of opinionating - The Boston Globe

All I know for sure is that my browser thinks it's spelled wrong.

Browsers are browsers they have a mind of their own ...

I've always thought the proper verb form is "opine". I'm going to look it up now.

 

[Oldstyle]

I think it's rather telling that with all of the really important issues we've faced lately...that the Obama Administration has been concerned about a blogger calling Valarie Jarrett "vacuous". Really guys? That's what you're spending your time on?

 

[R.C. Christian]

I see a drone coming.

God, I hope you're right.

You're not that lucky ass wipe and I live off the grid so keep hoping.

 

[J.E.D]

I know if I had been talking shit about my boss, and he found out, they would find a way to get rid of me. And I would have nobody to blame but myself.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Not "an innocent comment".

3 years and thousands of tweets mocking public figures from both sides of the aisle, often in a very mean-spirited way is more accurate.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Oh

My

God!

He mocked government officials. He should be thrown under the jail.

No, he should be put to death.

We cannot have people mocking anyone in the government.

It's kinda cute, you and 2ndAmendment are like some sort of straw man tag team.

Learn your fallacies.

Did you, or did you not, say he was not innocent, and then point out that he mocked public officials? The last time I checked mocking public officials wasn't a crime. In the United States of America unless you can point out what law he broke, and was convicted of, he is, by definition, innocent. That makes my fallacy a reductio absurdum, not a straw man.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Oh

My

God!

He mocked government officials. He should be thrown under the jail.

No, he should be put to death.

We cannot have people mocking anyone in the government.

It's kinda cute, you and 2ndAmendment are like some sort of straw man tag team.

Learn your fallacies.

Did you, or did you not, say he was not innocent, and then point out that he mocked public officials? The last time I checked mocking public officials wasn't a crime. In the United States of America unless you can point out what law he broke, and was convicted of, he is, by definition, innocent. That makes my fallacy a reductio absurdum, not a straw man.

Well, no. Now you're using equivocation. I've never even seen someone try that before.

I was using the word "innocent" to mean "harmless", not "not guilty" - the same context that the OP was using it in his headline.

Nothing I said implies I think his actions should be illegal, and claiming that I do is fighting a straw man.

 

[R.C. Christian]

I don't see a great conspiracy here. He was talking shit, true shit, but shit, and the the OA has been, very, very, very inhospitable to anyone who dares question herr Obama.

 

[jknowgood]

He should claim he's queer and sue.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It's kinda cute, you and 2ndAmendment are like some sort of straw man tag team.

Learn your fallacies.

Did you, or did you not, say he was not innocent, and then point out that he mocked public officials? The last time I checked mocking public officials wasn't a crime. In the United States of America unless you can point out what law he broke, and was convicted of, he is, by definition, innocent. That makes my fallacy a reductio absurdum, not a straw man.

Well, no. Now you're using equivocation. I've never even seen someone try that before.

I was using the word "innocent" to mean "harmless", not "not guilty" - the same context that the OP was using it in his headline.

Nothing I said implies I think his actions should be illegal, and claiming that I do is fighting a straw man.

You really need to read what you wrote, and my response. I don't have a problem with them firing him, I have a problem with your claim that "mocking public officials" justified it.

 

[Yurt]

the WH was completely justified in canning his ass. if i had an employee writing that stuff about my firm, see ya.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Learn your fallacies.

Did you, or did you not, say he was not innocent, and then point out that he mocked public officials? The last time I checked mocking public officials wasn't a crime. In the United States of America unless you can point out what law he broke, and was convicted of, he is, by definition, innocent. That makes my fallacy a reductio absurdum, not a straw man.

Well, no. Now you're using equivocation. I've never even seen someone try that before.

I was using the word "innocent" to mean "harmless", not "not guilty" - the same context that the OP was using it in his headline.

Nothing I said implies I think his actions should be illegal, and claiming that I do is fighting a straw man.

You really need to read what you wrote, and my response. I don't have a problem with them firing him, I have a problem with your claim that "mocking public officials" justified it.

I made no such claim. The only "claim" I've made at all is that the thread title is incorrect.

You're trying to paint my argument as some sort of ideological pro-government stance, which is ludicrous. I've said nothing of the sort.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

I know if I had been talking shit about my boss, and he found out, they would find a way to get rid of me. And I would have nobody to blame but myself.

THis is the PEOPLE's GOVERNMENT, not a private business.

This means our unelected officials would be FORCED to lie at all times to the public because the elected officials can fire them.

GOVERNMENT is NOT a PRIVATE BUSINESS.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Well, no. Now you're using equivocation. I've never even seen someone try that before.

I was using the word "innocent" to mean "harmless", not "not guilty" - the same context that the OP was using it in his headline.

Nothing I said implies I think his actions should be illegal, and claiming that I do is fighting a straw man.

You really need to read what you wrote, and my response. I don't have a problem with them firing him, I have a problem with your claim that "mocking public officials" justified it.

I made no such claim. The only "claim" I've made at all is that the thread title is incorrect.

You're trying to paint my argument as some sort of ideological pro-government stance, which is ludicrous. I've said nothing of the sort.

I know, this was somebody else.

Not "an innocent comment".

3 years and thousands of tweets mocking public figures from both sides of the aisle, often in a very mean-spirited way is more accurate.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

What this country needs is an office where people get paid for mocking public officials., and they should get bonuses for being rude.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

You really need to read what you wrote, and my response. I don't have a problem with them firing him, I have a problem with your claim that "mocking public officials" justified it.

I made no such claim. The only "claim" I've made at all is that the thread title is incorrect.

You're trying to paint my argument as some sort of ideological pro-government stance, which is ludicrous. I've said nothing of the sort.

I know, this was somebody else.

Not "an innocent comment".

3 years and thousands of tweets mocking public figures from both sides of the aisle, often in a very mean-spirited way is more accurate.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

What this country needs is an office where people get paid for mocking public officials., and they should get bonuses for being rude.

That was me correcting the thread title.

You seem to have read a bit more into it that isn't actually there.

*ETA: That "office" exists. It's called the entertainment industry.

 

[Yurt]

I know if I had been talking shit about my boss, and he found out, they would find a way to get rid of me. And I would have nobody to blame but myself.

THis is the PEOPLE's GOVERNMENT, not a private business.

This means our unelected officials would be FORCED to lie at all times to the public because the elected officials can fire them.

GOVERNMENT is NOT a PRIVATE BUSINESS.

so the chief of staff can talk about anything on a blog?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I made no such claim. The only "claim" I've made at all is that the thread title is incorrect.

You're trying to paint my argument as some sort of ideological pro-government stance, which is ludicrous. I've said nothing of the sort.

I know, this was somebody else.

Not "an innocent comment".

3 years and thousands of tweets mocking public figures from both sides of the aisle, often in a very mean-spirited way is more accurate.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

What this country needs is an office where people get paid for mocking public officials., and they should get bonuses for being rude.

That was me correcting the thread title.

You seem to have read a bit more into it that isn't actually there.

*ETA: That "office" exists. It's called the entertainment industry.

I see, instead of pointing out that it is not totalitarian to fire people, even if you are the government, you decided to complain about the description of a parody Twitter account as innocent.

Makes sense to no one but you.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I know if I had been talking shit about my boss, and he found out, they would find a way to get rid of me. And I would have nobody to blame but myself.

THis is the PEOPLE's GOVERNMENT, not a private business.

This means our unelected officials would be FORCED to lie at all times to the public because the elected officials can fire them.

GOVERNMENT is NOT a PRIVATE BUSINESS.

so the chief of staff can talk about anything on a blog?

As far as I am concerned, yes

 

[Yurt]

THis is the PEOPLE's GOVERNMENT, not a private business.

This means our unelected officials would be FORCED to lie at all times to the public because the elected officials can fire them.

GOVERNMENT is NOT a PRIVATE BUSINESS.

so the chief of staff can talk about anything on a blog?

As far as I am concerned, yes

and the CIC is free to can his ass

right?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

so the chief of staff can talk about anything on a blog?

As far as I am concerned, yes

and the CIC is free to can his ass

right?

I don't see why not.

 

[Yurt]

for those who are not bright enough, quantum and i of course are not talking national security type information