Imagine if Bush said "Sorry, no reporting of Katrina"

[sirs]

Now, before a certain someone tries to play the literal card, the question is more specific.....that is, what if the Bush administration said "ok, you can report on Katrina, but no pictures, no interviews....which is basically you can only pen to paper/keyboard what you see, and nothing more

Now, swap out that outrage with Obama and the border debacle.  Now, is the outrage just as horrid?  Or do you find some way to rationalize why its ok under Obama but would be condemned under Bush?

[Xavier_Onassis]

Now you are arguing about  asymmetrical events that we must imagine.

There must be something wrong with your mind.

Rick Perry does not want photos of him shaking hands with Obama, because he knows that they will be used against him.

President Obama does not want photos taken of him with some Central American child that at some point might be convicted of a crime or might get killed in Central American after being deported. There is no practical reason for him to visit the border to resolve this problem. There will be no permanent solution until Congress accepts some settlement in which at least some of the current illegal residents will be offered a way to become citizens.

People can say "we need to send every one of them back top their own countries",  and then after watching some documentary in which some hard-working pleasant illegal is separated from his family and deported, say "well, this guy is the sort we NEED in America."

There is no law that requires politicians to submit to photo ops that clearly can be used against them, nor should there be.

[sirs]

I'm arguing about what is.  It was Obama and the WH that said no pictures, or interviews.  Not Perry.  Nor was it specific to pictures of just Obama, it was ANY pictures and interviews of the site or the kids.   

If you can't answer a hypothetical question....well, that demonstrates how hypocritical the answer would be

[Xavier_Onassis]

No one can answer a hypothetical question, because it is hypothetical.

And everyone has the right not to be photographed for any reason at any place.

[sirs]

No one can answer a hypothetical question, because it is hypothetical.

Hypotheticals are asked and answered all the fricken time.      You do it everytime you complain that McCain would have taken us into war, or that Romney would only help "the rich", if he were President.  Those are non-existant hypotheticals, or as you try to dodge, "asymetrical events".  You're chosing not to answer this one, since it would demonstrate the utter hypocrisy of your likely answer

And everyone has the right not to be photographed for any reason at any place.

That's not the issue now, is it.  You think a photojournalist taking every picture they take of a natrual disaster, get everyone's permission??  This is about the press being told what they're going to be allowed to report.  Again, if that were the Bush administration telling journalists that they not be allowed to interview anyone or take any pictures of the actual people involved, you'd be telling Bush and the WH to go pound sand, and demanding that the Press do that as well

[Xavier_Onassis]

The President has no reason to go to the border and pose with the migrants, and you cannot make him.
No one is forbidding anyone to take pictures of the President, but he has no obligation to pose for Faux News or the Free Canada Press.

The photographers can take pictures of whatever they wish, no one is stopping them. But the President has no obligation to POSE fpor whatever photos they would like to take. No ones rights are being violated in the slightest, and yet there you are, pissing and moaning about the injustice of a universe in which the president refuses to pose for photos so you can poke fun at him.

[sirs]

The President has no reason to go to the border and pose with the migrants,

And yet SENATOR Obama was blasting Bush for not going to New Orleans, to pose with the legal migrants and children there.  Nor agin is this about pictures with Obama in them.  This is about pictures in general, and the mandate to the press that no pictures be taken.  How many times does that need to be beaten into your skull before you start to grasp the point being made

and you cannot make him.

Professor Deflection, strikes again.   

The photographers can take pictures of whatever they wish, no one is stopping them.

No they can't, and yes they are.  In order to accompany the President Press group, you were mandated that you couldn't.  Otherwise you couldn't come.  THAT'S the DAMN POINT

But the President has no obligation to POSE fpor whatever photos they would like to take.

Which has not, and never has been at issue

[Xavier_Onassis]

Of course it has. Have you not heard the rightwingers blathering about how the President is afraid to visit the border?
Can you not read? Have you no eyes or ears?

[sirs]

Of course it has.

Which of course, it hasn't, as I've been able to clearly demonstrate.  You're once again trying to argue a point, never made...So you're trying to make it up yourself

Have you not heard the rightwingers blathering about how the President is afraid to visit the border?

You mean like Senator Obama blathering about how President Bush was afraid to visit the families hurt by Katrina?  Yea, I have heard about them....which has nothing to do with this entire thread.  As I said, this about ANY PICTURES, and ANY INTERVIEWS.  Obama not need be in them.  It was a blanket order by the White House in telling the Press what they could & could not report on or take pictures of.  You would have been going apesnot had Bush pushed the same orders

Can you not read? Have you no eyes or ears?

Ironic that you ask that question.  Now try answering it, since apparently you need a "do-over"

[Xavier_Onassis]

As usual, you make no sense whatever.

[sirs]

And just as usual, you dodge & deflect from the CLEAR point that is being made.  If you're unable to grasp the point, perhaps asking a question or 2 could help.  A rational person would.  An irrational partisan would continue to deflect and claim how it'd be some waste of time to ask me anything

[Xavier_Onassis]

What is your point?  You have no point.

No one has any obligation to be photographed against his will.

[sirs]

What is your point?

The point ONE MORE TIME, as its been the point since the beginning of the thread >>>It was Obama and the WH that said no pictures, or interviews, of ANYONE. Nor was it specific to pictures of just Obama, it was ANY pictures and interviews of the site or the kids.

No one has any obligation to be photographed against his will.

[/quote]

See what I mean?  That's a point no one is arguing!!