Let's talk about replacing GWBush in 2004.

blatham wrote:

Quote:
but Kerry is everything to all people!

Are we to expect continuing inanity from you? How about stretching yourself a little and getting past quotes of what other people have said.

Truth hurts, Kerry caught in a lie and its hard to take. The quote "everything to all people" is just the truth..

In front of the Muslim audience he says the wall in Israel is a wall stopping the peace. In front of Israelis he says the wall is necessary.
(don't have the exact quote) the message is still the same. All things to all people.....

0 Replies

Xena: Hang in there...denial is a wondrous thing. DNC'ers are already floating a "Teresa's hidden (undisclosed) assets are the Elephant in the room...and John's waterloo. Alert! Swimming rodents in the ways. This stuff won't be reported by the alphabet soup Media...but watch for signs of early distancing: Rather's fumbling "blog"antics masks Top Brass's
scrambled attempt to pronounce the word "current". Kerry's booed daughters at MTV's Miami bash and the failed "Viet Stiff Drinkers"ploy, even Bubba is conducting low energy sermons aimed at the Swifties. No wonder our usual roomies are "busy" doing their "research". The Mustard's Off the Hot Dog!

0 Replies

Quote:

(don't have the exact quote)

Well, find them.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Quote:
(don't have the exact quote)

Well, find them.

Well, a direct order!
It has been told a few times on the news.

ISRAEL'S SECURITY WALL

FIRST HE SAID: "I know how disheartened Palestinians are by the Israeli government's decision to build a barrier off the green line, cutting deeply into Palestinian areas. We do not need another barrier to peace." John Kerry, Oct. 17 2003

THEN HE SAID: "Israel's security fence is a legitimate act of self defense."John Kerry, Feb. 25, 2004

[Posted 07/09 05:43 PM]

0 Replies

Xena

That isn't good enough, and here's why. I could do the same (simply with use of quotation marks) and have Bush or anyone else saying anything I might dream up, and then try to pass it off as something he really said.

What is needed is an exact description of where someone might go to check the veracity of your/my claim that X was said by the person we attribute that to. A reader needs to know what your source is.

Here on the internet, we have the means to link the source of our information. In academic or scientific papers, and in journalism, the protocol is to note the source with all the needed information (book/article title, author, page, etc).

Not only should the source of the information be made as easy as possible to locate and verify, that source ought to be one which has credibility (a quote from The National Enquirer would not be credible, a quote from a highly partisan source might be but knowing the source is partisan allows a reader to approach the information with some carefulness).

This sort of care in passing on information is absolutely necessary if we aren't to be swamped with false rumours, sneaky smear-jobs, silly legends, and outright lies.

0 Replies

what if your source is drunk?

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Xena

That isn't good enough, and here's why. I could do the same (simply with use of quotation marks) and have Bush or anyone else saying anything I might dream up, and then try to pass it off as something he really said.

Now, now, Blatham ... you're right about the conventions of political posting stuff - source, link, etc - but a direct quote plus date is often already pretty sufficient. After all, the same Internet also allows us to easily doublecheck an assertion like that: just copy/paste the quote in question into Google with quotation marks around it, and presto.

For example, the Kerry quote,

Quote:

I know how disheartened Palestinians are by the Israeli government's decision to build a barrier off the green line, cutting deeply into Palestinian areas. We do not need another barrier to peace

yields lots of links to WorldNetDaily, RushLimbaugh, RightWingNews etc -- but also this one to Mother Jones, wherein he's quoted saying the same thing, "In October 2003, speaking to members of the Arab American Institute".

The other quote is apparently from an interview with the Jerusalem Post, in which he said:

Quote:

Israel's security fence is a legitimate act of self defense [..] No nation can stand by while its children are blown up at pizza parlors and on buses. While President [George W.] Bush is rightly discussing with Israel the exact route of the fence to minimize the hardship it causes innocent Palestinians, Israel has a right and a duty to defend its citizens. The fence only exists in response to the wave of terror attacks against Israel.

This quote, too, is linked by a lot of the far rights web outlets, but apart from stemming from the Jpost, its also recounted in sources like Beirut's Daily Star.

0 Replies

Xena wrote:

ISRAEL'S SECURITY WALL

FIRST HE SAID: "I know how disheartened Palestinians are by the Israeli government's decision to build a barrier off the green line, cutting deeply into Palestinian areas. We do not need another barrier to peace." John Kerry, Oct. 17 2003

THEN HE SAID: "Israel's security fence is a legitimate act of self defense."John Kerry, Feb. 25, 2004

god forbid that both are true... the concept of a diplomatic third party is that this person can see both sides, empathasize (sic?), and then work to bring them both to that understanding.

ya get more flies with sugar than vinegar.

and how's bushy's "roadmap to peace" coming along, btw?

0 Replies

Thanks Nimh, as I am a novice and just getting my sea legs on the search/internet particulars. Thanks for your work.

I don't see how telling one group, one thing and another group another is bringing anyone together. It is a confusing stand and just goes to show everyone how much of an opportunist Kerry really is..

That is not a "plan". It is garbage.

0 Replies

Quote:

Now, now, Blatham ... you're right about the conventions of political posting stuff - source, link, etc - but a direct quote plus date is often already pretty sufficient.

Now, now nimh. Of course that is not sufficient and you know better. But you are on a personally fulfilling (I assume) 'blatham needs manners' campaign presently. Please, continue your guardianship of Xena (plus a few others I'll steer you to, just follow my posts) and you have my best wishes.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Quote:
Now, now, Blatham ... you're right about the conventions of political posting stuff - source, link, etc - but a direct quote plus date is often already pretty sufficient.

Now, now nimh. Of course that is not sufficient and you know better. But you are on a personally fulfilling (I assume) 'blatham needs manners' campaign presently. Please, continue your guardianship of Xena (plus a few others I'll steer you to, just follow my posts) and you have my best wishes.

I vote for sufficient. Not that it matters, because on a meta-level, I vote that none of us gets to decide what is sufficient or not sufficient for everybody else. He only gets to decide what is sufficient for him. Finally, I vote that when someone in this forum disagrees with Blatham or anybody else, it's usually not for reasons of self-fulfilment and campaigning. Usually, its just for the straightforward reason that there is a difference of opinion -- including, but not limited to, this case.

Just my 20 millibucks.

0 Replies

Xena wrote: "That is not a "plan". It is garbage. "

And just what are your diplomatic credentials ?

Kerry recognizes the disheartening and borderline hopeless situation the Palestinians face and at the same time recognizes Israel's right to defend itself. Clearly both of those components must factor into any resolution.

The real garbage (IMO) emantes from the notion that "there is only one way, MY way", regardless of who embraces that notion or where (e.g. W in Iraq).

0 Replies

"Guardianship of Xena"?

Aside from the fact that it really, really sounds like the first Lucy Lawless major motion picture, isn't that a bit much?

0 Replies

Sorry soz. No particularly good defence for that one. Backing out door....

0 Replies

Aw, come back.

(Do you have the Abuzz screenplay url? I haven't found it yet. Jes was nice enough to send me the whole shebang, saved, but I've wanted to post the url in one of the Abuzz threads here.)

0 Replies

Nah...I'm a little weary from getting in fights with folks I like.

Here's the thread url...let me know if you wish to have the peripheral ones as well.

http://nytimes.abuzz.com/interaction/s.250704/discussion_in_list/ci/0/

0 Replies

Very amusing.

I thought Blatham - whom I like and admire greatly - was indeed a bit tough and condescending in an earlier riposte to Xena. It doesn't surprise me that a nice guy like Nimh would come to her defense. However Blatham is not normally one to back off so easily - he can be a decidedly tough and skillful combatant in the posting wars.

However when Soz subtly suggested that he might have crossed a sexist boundary he quickly (and gracefully) backed off.

Makes one understand just how powerful are the doctrines of political correctitude.

0 Replies

Wha...?

Sexist boundary?

No, I just thought that nimh's comments were reasonable, and that characterizing them as he did ("guardian" etc.) wasn't called for.

If anything, I think it's just that I agree with him 99.99652 percent of the time, so if even i am saying whoa there...

Oh, thanks for the url!!

0 Replies

george

Time for candid. Actually, the gender issue didn't even cross my mind. Rather, it was the reminder that I don't know Xena's age. And you are right...Nimh is a nice guy, and so is Thomas. Yet I've found myself at odds with both of them recently and Craven earlier and not on issues of policy (that's no problem, even if Thomas' believes it so) but rather on issues of online manners and, actually, online open forum pedagogy. But I do like these three guys (though soz most of all) and I cannot justify speaking as I did to someone who may well be young. I have to entertain the possibility I'm wrong.

Unfortunately, I also have to entertain the possibility that I'm right, that your nation is turning a corner from which she may not recover, and in the process, drag down much else with her. A fundamental indicator leading to my concern is the posting/thinking/education level of many new people as they arrive, and here I see such frequency of indoctrination where minds have not merely been untutored, but have been mis-tutored. It's a terribly small sample, but I have little reason to think it unrepresentative and reasons to think it is not significantly skewed.

There are few here who share my level of anxiety about these matters, though most share some, and many like yourself have faith the structural components of your political system and your culture will prove steady against extremes. I'm not at all confident of that. I think it is about a 50/50 chance that future elections there will pass muster. That is, I see the clear prospect of unyielding oligarchical control of the machinery of state and media such that free elections become effectively and actually illusory.

Because I consider this threat so proximate, with consequences so unknown and potentially dire, I get impatient or worse.

0 Replies

"We need to start planning on how to replace this dangerous cowboy in 2004. Any suggestions? c.i."

Too late. The Dems should have thought of that before they gave us Kerry as an alternative, CI.

0 Replies

Let's talk about replacing GWBush in 2004.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know