's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions

Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )

Distortion?(14 posts)

May 15, 2003 4:31 AM
from neil boortz's webpage:
In this particular case the liberal in question is Maureen Dowd at America's affirmative action headquarters, The New York Times.
Dowd is a leftist who does not have a lot of affection for President Bush. Evidently the New York Times gives Dowd free reign to misquote President Bush if it will serve to advance her leftist agenda . which is to make George Bush look like an imbecile.
As you know, the left has been left in utter dismay over the quick success of the Bush effort to unseat Saddam Hussein. They're upset because it went so fast and because the Iraqi people are obviously pleased with the results. Leftists are also upset because of the various Saddam Hussein atrocities that are regularly being uncovered. Democrats are trying to counter Bush's success in Iraq by claiming that it came at the expense of our war on terrorism. Several Democrats have tried to capitalize on this weeks terrorist bombings in Saudi Arabia by claiming that they would have not happened if Bush had paid attention to terrorism instead of Iraq.
In that vein Andrew Sullivan points us to Maureen Dowd's May 14th New York Times Column where you will find the following quote:
Busy chasing off Saddam, the president and vice president had told us that Al Qaeda was spent. "Al Qaeda is on the run," President Bush said last week. "That group of terrorists who attacked our country is slowly but surely being decimated... They're not a problem anymore."
Did you catch those three dots? That means something has been left out of the quote. Those three dots represent words . but the words are supposed to be words that can have no affect on the essence of the quotation presented. If you read the quote the way Maureen Dowd presented it you get the impression that President Bush thinks that Al Qaeda isn't a threat to American security any more. Now, read the entire quote – including the words Dowd left out –

Al Qaeda is on the run. That group of terrorists who attacked our country is slowly, but surely being decimated. Right now, about half of all the top al Qaeda operatives are either jailed or dead. In either case, they're not a problem anymore.
Now . do you get the same impression of Bush's words when you read the entire quote? After reading the full quote do you think that Bush is saying that Al Qaeda isn't at problem anymore, or do you think he's referring to the Al Qaeda leaders who have been captured?
Here we have a clear illustration of a left-wing columnist trying to change the meaning of something the president said in order to promote her liberal viewpoing.
Now . let's wait for the New York Times to apologize for this one.
Wow. That's terrible. These leftists -- whew. AndOldEdScott
May 15, 2003 4:48 AM
the really important thing you were too modest to point out is, in the storied history of right wing journalism/commentary, NOT ONE TIME has a reactionary Republican columnist used ellipses erroneously or misleadingly. NOT ONCE. Never happened.

Amazing the duplicity of these evil liberals. Even more amazing how pure and noble our conservative spokesmen and spokewomen are. You'd never catch, oh, Ann Coulter torturing accuracy for the sake of promoting her neo-fascist viewpoint.
I actually find Ann Coulter ....Live Steam
May 15, 2003 5:19 AM
to be rather attractive ;0) She couldn't possibly do anything to distort the facts!

Let's face it the Times has proven to be an invalid source for truthful reporting. The Blair fiasco was know by them for over a year and they still did nothing about it. They actually promoted the jerk even after he was outed. I no longer subscribe. I get the A&L, Sports and Business sections from my folks. The rest of it is pure fiction.
Ann Coulter...ClydeTri
May 15, 2003 5:56 AM
a beauty who is sassy with brains...what more can you want?
She's a hottie, all right.OldEdScott
May 15, 2003 6:04 AM
But only because she's made of hell fire.
Ya gotta like that in a woman :O)Live Steam
May 15, 2003 6:31 AM
Beauty, brains and a CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN! I like her style. I used to come off as a little prissy, but I think she knows how to let her hair down IYKWIM :O)
Us lefties need to get some of them Spokes-HottiesDale Brigham
May 15, 2003 6:43 AM

There clearly is a Hottie gap between the Dems and the 'Pubs, and we are on the wrong side of it. While the Right trots out phalanxes of blonde, short-skirted Foxes (pun intended) to help "energize their base" as it were, we Lefties have Jeanie Garafalo and Susan Sarandon, who are definitely nice looking, but sadly a (high-heeled) step behind the competition.

We need to get some Stone-Cold Vixens who can spout our blather just as photogenically as the opposition. I envision a made-for-TV (what isn't these days?) competition: "Who Wants to be a Pinko Princess?" Contestants will be quizzed on Marxist cant, the entire works of Mario Cuomo, and bourbon pedigrees. Of course, there will be a swimsuit competition. You and I, my friend, are perfectly qualified to be judges. Let the games begin!

I'm with you, my brother!OldEdScott
May 15, 2003 7:25 AM
The Hottie Gap is DEFINITELY a problem. We must throw ourselves into the, uh, breach and, uh, close it.

The only real leftie hottie is Katerina Vanden Heuvel of The Nation magazine, and I suspect she's too exotic and intelligent to raise the average viewer's temperature much. Plus she eschews miniskirts and makeup, two more strikes against her. I rarely see her commenting on Fox.
Leftists have more funfiltersweep
May 15, 2003 7:51 AM
and of course, according to half the drivel here, if you are more liberal than a Cal Thomas, you must be a radical leftist- and if you are as left as a Wellstone, you advocate for overthrowing the government.

Caveats aside: you won't need to worry about messing up a leftists hair, or leaving a fun stain on her dress. Leftists know why Republicans are so terrified of inhaling: it might lead to dancing. Seriously, I don't know many rightwingers who have much fun, or a sense of humor about anything- especially themselves... and much of the rhetoric seems fear based.

Those so-called right-wing "babes" are just trophy wives/kept women and breeding stock (if it ever gets that far)- after all, wouldn't want to violate any sodomy laws ;)
She's not bad looking, but it would be difficult...rwbadley
May 15, 2003 7:16 AM
for me to have to listen to that claptrap she spews. If you believe there has never been a fact twisted out of that pretty little mouth, then I have a fine bridge, the purchase of which you may have an interest in.

I don't know what you see in hermoneyman
May 15, 2003 10:31 AM
Looks a bit scary to me.

Re. Ann Coulter----does the carpet match the drapes?cycleaddict
May 15, 2003 8:11 AM
Yeah - so?moneyman
May 15, 2003 6:50 AM
She's an OPINION columnist, not a beat writer. She gets to sya what she wants to without having to defend her story. She distorts things, so does Molly Ivins, so does Cal Thomas, so does George Will, although George Will always sounds better than the others. Distortion takes place on the front page of the Times, too. Also on the front page of the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal.

I read lots of news every day. I try to sort out the facts from all the gobbledygook that's mixed in there to come up with some semblance of true information. About the only things I take really seriously are stories from Pensions and Investments, a biweekly magazine, and Woody Paige's column in the Denver Post sports section. It's best to assume that all else is tainted.

Aw, get a job, you clean-shaven conservative scumSilverback
May 15, 2003 8:30 AM
If you had to hold down a job and support a family like good liberal Americans, you wouldn't have time to worry bout this drivel.
But seriously, and meaning no disrespect: Do you actually THINK about this stuff, or does it just go from Limbaugh's mouth to your heart?