Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Dancing on Graves.......

Katrina Top News 2005 Aftermath

  • Please log in to reply
113 replies to this topic

#101 Lin731

Lin731
  • Islander
  • 4,126 posts

Posted 14 September 2005 - 02:04 PM

Quote

~.~ Take this in it's entirety as you bolded it and you can see why people took it the way they did. Because this part, in bold, says what they think you were saying, is exactly what you were sayng.

If you meant the later version (your clarifying posts), then that is exactly what you should have said at the start. Would save alot of problems, would it not?


Yep and the parts that were bolded were bolded by RuReddy.  Now when I bold things, I do it to draw attention to it, to add emphasis to the text.
Posted Image
Posted Image

#102 Call Me Robin

Call Me Robin

    red-haired and proud

  • Islander
  • 970 posts

Posted 14 September 2005 - 09:19 PM

Elara, on Sep 14 2005, 06:33 PM, said:

RuReddy1,Sep 10 2005, 09:47 PM:

Quote

The fact that we will be denied the edifying television spectactle of watching the gruesome task of retrieving these corpses has now led to charges of a “cover-up” – as if focusing a camera on the bloated, blackened remains of our fellow citizens should be made into some kind of reality TV show.

Quote

I know you all were more concerned with making your replies about the entire article instead of on what I wanted the focus to be on.  I can bolden the words but I can't make you stay on that point.

The orignal topic in all of your view was not what I was posting about. As you can see if you had read my comment.

~.~ If I may offer up some advice, RuReddy?

Look at what you actually bolded:

RuReddy1,Sep 9 2005, 12:45 PM:

Quote

Dancing on the graves of black people
September 9th, 2005

Quote

Yes, these are heady days for our left wing friends. The fact that their celebrations are taking place as a direct result of the distress, suffering, anguish and death of tens of thousands of their fellow citizens seems to not be of much concern to our morally superior betters. In fact, it has emboldened them to advance every crack pot theory on race and class that has poisoned American politics for going on forty years. One could say the left is dancing on the graves of black people, celebrating the exploitation of a political opening brought about by the incompetence of relief efforts in the largely black neighborhoods of New Orleans. Except for one thing: most of those graves are empty at the moment because the future les habitants haven't even been plucked from the floodwaters yet.

But why let a small detail like common decency spoil a good party? It's Mardi Gras in September in the Big Easy and liberals are dancing the Cajun Reel with the thousands of grinning skeletons who very soon now will start filling up the temporary mortuaries set up to receive them. The fact that we will be denied the edifying television spectactle of watching the gruesome task of retrieving these corpses has now led to charges of a "cover-up" – as if focusing a camera on the bloated, blackened remains of our fellow citizens should be made into some kind of reality TV show. Kind of a Survivor meets The Great Race high concept production. Why, the syndication possibilities are staggering.

~.~ Take this in it's entirety as you bolded it and you can see why people took it the way they did. Because this part, in bold, says what they think you were saying, is exactly what you were sayng.

If you meant the later version (your clarifying posts), then that is exactly what you should have said at the start. Would save alot of problems, would it not?

~edit to fix quote tags, again.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Golly gee, I don't know about you, but I doubt RuReddy originally intended the topic to be about showing photos of the dead.  Otherwise, that text wouldn't have been bolded.  I suspect someone is trying to cover his/her tracks here.
Of all the varieties of virtues, liberalism is the most beloved.
--Aristotle

The fanatic is not really a stickler to principle. He embraces a cause not primarily because of its justness or holiness but because of his desperate need for something to hold onto.
--Eric Hoffer

#103 Nonprofit

Nonprofit
  • Islander
  • 2,163 posts

Posted 14 September 2005 - 11:12 PM

Quote

scherzo

Quote

Cait
If you're going to be this snarky, maybe you should take a deep breath and count to 10 before clicking "submit".
Good advice...hope MuseZack takes it.

It might occur to you how stupid it sounds to request a link to a site you've already dismissed as "right wing lunatic",(or maybe this passes for "common courtesy" when coming from certain special people?) but the irony of chastising RuReddy for the far less inflammatory reply, clearly missed you by a mile.

-scherzo

Thanks a bunch scherzo. :)

I also thought it was thoughtless and rude but some of us get suspended for 1 insult,  then some of the selected get to say what they want or get to edit. Go figure.

RuReddy

#104 Nonprofit

Nonprofit
  • Islander
  • 2,163 posts

Posted 14 September 2005 - 11:15 PM

Quote

Elara
~.~ If I may offer up some advice, RuReddy?

I'm glad you asked first, very polite but this is where I stopped reading.

I hope you take this in that same polite way you gave me advise.

Sorry.... My give a damn's busted.  Save it for somebody who cares.

RuReddy

#105 Nonprofit

Nonprofit
  • Islander
  • 2,163 posts

Posted 14 September 2005 - 11:21 PM

Quote

Muse Zack
Please cite your quotes and provide links, Ru. You've been asked to do this before. It'd be nice to know which actual right wing lunatic sites you're cutting and pasting from

Quote

Cait
It's a common courtesy to cite the source of something you are quoting,

Both of you seem very intense that there is a missing link.  However, there are others on the board. Total of 3 that I saw but I don't really care about missing links.  So I will let you folks have all the fun.  I will give you the link to the first one and its up to you to find the others.  :)

http://www.exisle.ne...11

Good Luck with your mission.  Remember.... practice what you preach, common courtesy at all times.  

RuReddy

#106 Shalamar

Shalamar

    Last Star to the Left and Straight on till Morning

  • Forever Missed
  • 17,644 posts

Posted 14 September 2005 - 11:23 PM

Please every one, I'm not a mod here, but you are starting to lose focus on the topic and start in one the posters.

Lets keep it on topic, and not about each other.
The three most important R's
Respect for One's Self / Respect for Others / Responsibility for One's Words & Actions.

Posted Image

#107 CJ AEGIS

CJ AEGIS

    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 15 September 2005 - 12:22 AM

Moderator's Helmet On
Everyone should consider what he or she is saying in this thread.  As Shal stated above several people are getting off the topic at hand and getting snarky toward each other.  The expectation in OT is that this forum is a discussion forum and the tone of those discussions should be civil.  This is not a place to take shots at one another.    
Moderator's Helmet Off!
"History has proven too often and too recently that the nation which relaxes its defenses invites attack."
        -Fleet Admiral Nimitz
"Their sailors say they should have flight pay and sub pay both -- they're in the air half the time, under the water the other half""
        - Ernie Pyle: Aboard a DE

#108 Anarch

Anarch
  • Islander
  • 1,136 posts

Posted 15 September 2005 - 10:56 AM

G1223, on Sep 13 2005, 04:39 AM, said:

You mean wrong about CBS making up a story and when caught had to remove "Honest" Dan Rather from his anchor spot.

If you're going to cite this story could you at least do so correctly?

1) CBS didn't "make up the story".  The story existed before and after CBS' reportage.  It actually goes back to 1999 when irregularities were first noticed in Bush's military record because he'd lied about them in his 1998 (?) (ghostwritten?) autobiography.

2) The story, in its overview, happens to be true: there were and are massive irregularities with the documentation concerning Bush's TXANG services that have been extensively documented elsewhere.  [IIRC, www.glcq.com has more than you could ever possibly want to know about the precise analysis of Bush's payroll records.]

3) CBS' error was to accept, prima facie, what now appear to be forged documents from a third-party source and report on these without seeking secondary confirmation.  Rather's firing stemmed specifically from incandescent right-wing outrage that happened to be largely independent from any concerns about the truth or factuality of the story (though strangely a lot about typefacing).

In short: the story was, as near as I can determine, true (or at least plausible and consistent)... it's just that CBS failed to source it correctly.  That makes them worthy of a finger-waggling; the lynchmob, however, was total BS.

Quote

Basically the put up job is one of many such action that year which was to try and smear Bush and use the power of the press to do it.

Bollocks.  CBS thought they had a sizzling, sensational, news-worthy story.  Had they managed to acquire legitimate documentation confirming the story, it would indeed have been all three.  The fact that Bush was President was not, of course, independent from their considerations but -- and this is a point you deliberately seem to ignore -- they did not single him out because of any specific animus against Bush as a Republican President or because of any specific animus against Bush as a person.  As far as anyone can tell, had Bush been a Democratic President under similar pretenses -- "War President" + dubious military record, essentially -- they'd've done exactly the same thing.

Quote

The media did this with the large majority of their reporters being democrats. Why are we suppose to be stupid enough to accept their excuses that it was only a few bad apples after decades of simular action.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


How cute to see the Abu Ghraib defense turned on its head.  Also, it's crap; media coverage, especially since about 1994-5 has generally leaned away from Democratic positions -- there are indeed some exceptions, and these are indeed exceptions -- which isn't necessarily the same as leaning towards Republican positions. As two quick examples: mainstream of coverage of the innumerable, scandalous and almost invariably false Clinton scandals* which later spun into craptacular coverage of the Gore campaign in 2000 (read Bob Somerby on Gore's "earth tones" sometimes, or on the blatant Republican lying, adopted by the media, on Gore's "inventing the internet"); and the credulous, mendacious, complicit coverage in the run-up to the Iraq War.  [See, e.g. Judy Millier, Ahmad Chalabi and the NYT for a specific exemplar of this, though there are tons of others.]

* Yes, there was one rather important one which wasn't false.  Of the others?  Crap.  Every single one of them crap.  Not that this got much reportage, of course.

#109 Anarch

Anarch
  • Islander
  • 1,136 posts

Posted 15 September 2005 - 11:22 AM

Quote

Look at the photo they picked of John Roberts. How appealing, eh? I don't think if he was a democrat, they would have made this sort of selection. I should think not.

Yes.  Because every photo of Clinton was ripped from the pages of Esquire, Janet Reno was perpetually portrayed as a Claudia Schiffer clone and Tom Daschle, why, talk about a hunka hunka burnin' manmeat!

Do you even think about what you're writing?

Quote

CNN had a funny headline today but it wasn't there for long. Said "Hell has Frozen Over"...And when you clicked on it to took you to Bushs apology article. Was only up for less then 2 hours. Umm not bias by a long shot hmmm?

Given that not only had Bush never accepted responsbility for any prior failings under his administration, that Bush's previous brush with accountability had been to declare Donald Rumsfeld the best Secretary of Defense after Abu Ghraib, and that as far as anyone knows "accept responsibility" is almost explicitly contrary to Karl Rove's political playbook -- and no, tennyson, that's not in the slightest bit sarcastic -- yeah, I was a little surprised too.  Might've even expressed it in a snarky headline.  Since the apology appears to have been vacuous, however, I'm sure Hell is doing just fine.

Also, if you're going to cite an example of bias perhaps you should do so with one that isn't self-contradicting: as you yourself say in this paragraph, they took the headline down within two hours.  Again, do you even bother to think about what you're writing?

Finally, since I don't have the stomach to explain the difference between "spinning" and "sensationalism" to you, let me just note this:

Quote

Oh my then we have a little show on in the mornings called "The Today Show" with Katie Couric and Matt Lauer. I call them the tag team of the democratic party. Katie and Matt lean very far to the left, they need a wall the hold them up.

Good grief.  Why on earth should anyone bother to take you seriously after a clownish (tm Bob Somerby) paragraph like that?  "I call them the tag team of the democratic party"?  Who gives a crap?  I don't care what twee little insults you can think up -- I mean, I'm sure you think it's cute, which reflects rather poorly on you I might add -- I'm interested in what the truth is.  "Lean very far to the left"?  Do you have the slightest idea what the left edge of the political spectrum comprises?  Have either Katie or Matt advocated, say, nationalizing the heavy industries?  Income caps and subsequent redistribution?  Good grief, have they even publicly supported universal health care?

[I actually don't know the answer to the last one, but I'm pretty sure I can answer the first two.  In my sleep.]

As it happens, my understanding is that Couric and Lauer are liberalish in their politics.  [Probably center-liberal, but it's awfully hard to tell since they both assiduously try to keep to the script.  And yes, I've read MRC and yes, they're full of crap.]  So what?  FOX News by itself emits more GOP bias per minute -- and again, tennyson, I mean that quite literally (albeit averaged) -- than Couric and Lauer do per show.  That doesn't prove anything in a vacuum; you need to bolster your argument with, y'know, facts and stuff.

On which note, if you're going to bold specific sentences, perhaps you should do so with ones that support your point?

Quote

"Will this storm hurt President Bush's ability to accomplish his second term agenda and what impact will it have on his legacy? We'll talk with a top historian about that."

Let's see; Bush's polls, quoth Pew and others, went down approximately 2 points during Katrina and her aftermath.  [Which is itself extraordinary because Presidents almost never lose in the polls during an emergency or catastrophe; it's the whole "rally around the flag" effect.]   And you're holding this particular question up as somehow "biased"?  Bollocks.  It's a legitimate question -- question, not proclamation -- and one that deserves answering.

Quote

Couric: "How hamstrung might this President be when it comes to accomplishing things on his legislative agenda, for example, social security reform and other measures that he wants to complete as part of a second term?"...
Couric: "So you think it will hurt the Republican Party in general or do you think they can bounce back from this?"

Again, these are perfectly legitimate questions.  The GOP took a political hit during Katrina; it's only natural to turn to the nearest expert and ask how much damage would result in the long-run.  The only way it could be illegitimate would be for someone to declare that any unsanctioned disapproval of the GOP was off-limits in public discourse... and, well, if that's what you're trying to say then I suggest you do so openly.  Might save everyone a lot of time.

One last bit of insanity here:

Quote

Couric: "And real quickly, Tim. I had several officials say to me when I was covering the story, 'Katie this is a clear indication that this country is not prepared for another terrorist attack.' Is that a fair assessment and will action be taken to make sure that the response to a terrorist attack is going to be better than the response to Katrina?"

Russert: "Katie, Newt Gingrich, the former Republican Speaker, said exactly that. And if you talk to people privately they are deathly afraid that if there is another terrorist attack or another natural disaster we just don't have our act together at the local, state or federal level. It is something of grave concern here in official Washington."

You realize that people are saying this in public, right?  You realize that, in fact, the shocking mismanagement of the Federal response actually proves -- not in a "this is my opinion, pm me if you want to burst my bubble because I can't bear to have my feelings hurt" kind of way, but in a "this is what's happening in the real world" kind of way -- that we're unprepared for a major terrorist attack?  You realize that, well, if there weren't grave concern in Washington about the travesty we'd be in a f***load of trouble, right?

Good grief.  I'd ask you once again if you thought about what you were writing, but since you didn't write this I guess I'll have to content myself with asking whether you bother to read what you're cutting and pasting... and from the looks of it, the answer's rather obviously no.

Edited by Anarch, 15 September 2005 - 11:26 AM.


#110 Anarch

Anarch
  • Islander
  • 1,136 posts

Posted 15 September 2005 - 11:30 AM

Oh, and CJ, you gotta do what you gotta do.  I respect that; sayang.

#111 tennyson

tennyson
  • Islander
  • 6,173 posts

Posted 15 September 2005 - 12:24 PM

Why are you dragging me into this Anarch? I don't think I've even commented in this thread before this.
"Only an idiot would fight a war on two fronts. Only the heir to the throne of the Kingdom of Idiots would fight a war on twelve fronts."

— Londo, "Ceremonies of Light and Dark" Babylon-5


#112 Zwolf

Zwolf
  • Islander
  • 3,683 posts

Posted 15 September 2005 - 12:40 PM

Yep, I think you got Reddy confused with Tennyson there, Anarch... which is, um, a very, very difficult thing to do... :)   The stuff you quoted was Reddy's.

Cheers,

Zwolf
"I've moved on and I'm feeling fine
And I'll feel even better
When your life has nothing to do with mine."
-Pittbull, "No Love Lost"

"There are things that I'd like to say
But I'm never talking to you again
There's things I'd like to phrase some way
But I'm never talking to you again

I'm never talking to you again
I'm never talking to you
I'm tired of wasting all my time
Trying to talk to you

I'd put you down where you belong
But I'm never talking to you again
I'd show you everywhere you're wrong
But I'm never talking to you again

I'm never talking to you again
I'm never talking to you
I'm tired of wasting all my time
Trying to talk to you

I'm never talking to you again
I'm never talking to you
I'm tired of wasting all my time
Trying to talk to you."
- Husker Du, "Never Talking To You Again"

#113 Nonprofit

Nonprofit
  • Islander
  • 2,163 posts

Posted 15 September 2005 - 01:47 PM

Quote

tennyson Posted Today, 12:24 PM
  Why are you dragging me into this Anarch? I don't think I've even commented in this thread before this.

Please forget your name was mentioned, I know it was talking to me and not you.  

RuReddy

#114 Nonprofit

Nonprofit
  • Islander
  • 2,163 posts

Posted 15 September 2005 - 01:50 PM

Quote

Zwolf666 Posted Today, 12:40 PM
  Yep, I think you got Reddy confused with Tennyson there, Anarch... which is, um, a very, very difficult thing to do...  The stuff you quoted was Reddy's.

Yes,  you are quite right Zwolf.  But it is on a roll of attacking,  in every post they write.  

RuReddy



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Katrina, Top News 2005, Aftermath

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users