Gem
Rookie
- Aug 11, 2004
- 2,080
- 783
- 0
- Banned
- #21
ItsTheTruth Wrote:
I just had to address this. There were so many ridiculously stupid comments in it I felt it would be remiss of me to let it go.
ItsTheTruth, the article title is not the point. The point is, once you read the article, you discovered that the Bush Administration had indeed responded to the shooting, in a completely appropriate way. The article itself answered its own question: Why hasn't Bush responded? With an answer: Oh yeah, he did!
Your tirade about conservatives not appreciating other points of view is truly remarkable in the context of this thread because you are guilty of exactly what you are accussing conservatives of doing. You took an article which clearly discussed both sides of an issue...and completely disregarded the side that did not jive with your world view! And then you got angry and insulting when people pointed out that you had made a whole thread dedicated to bashing Bush for "ignoring" the Native American crisis...when the very article you pointed to disproved your entire point.
No one here was threatened by this article, nor are they threatened by you or your ideas...quite frankly, as this thread demonstrates, you haven't expressed any idea clearly or rationally enough to be taken seriously.
Conservatives and Libertarians and Right-Leaning Democrats and Others (there are more than just conservatives here, by the way) do not demand that everyone agree with them...just that they make sense and are honest about the information when they disagree. Now, I'll agree wholeheartedly that there are Conservatives here, and others, who are idiots who can't put a sentence together without spitting out insults and belittling people who disagree with them...but they get taken about as seriously as you do....so I wouldnt get too upset about them.
I've called several people out for misusing information, and I've seen OCA and others take several people (on both sides of the political spectrum) to task for linking incorrectly. But heres the thing, no one is stating that you linked incorrectly here, ItsTheTruth...just that you picked and choose in an obviously skewed and biased manner.
You posted an article that expressed several Native Americans views about how Bush was handling a situation and then discussed how Bush has handled the situation. However, you chose to only include the side that was negative for Bush...rather than doing what would have made this thread worthwhile....posting both sides and asking for a debate on whether or not Bush's response was adequate or appropriate, or even posting Bush's response and stating that you feel it wasn't enough...both of these, or something similar, would have gotten you a lively debate on whether or not Bush was doing the right thing in this situation.
But that obviously wasn't your intention...it was just to show that Bush wasn't doing anything about the crisis (which was a lie) because of his, "infrequent visits to the White House" (another lie). Your original thread and the subsequent retorts have demonstrated quite clearly that this, and not a measured, reasonable conversation regarding Bush's response to this matter, was what you were aiming for when you posted this thread. So please don't act surprised when you get a measured, reasonable conversation about your obvious agenda, rather than the topic you posted on (which, by the way, several people addressed WHILE discussing your posting style).
So in the sake of moving forward I'll ask you...whats the point? Did you really want to exchange ideas with people who hold an opinion different than your own? Or were you just excited to post another article that might be read as yet another Bush bash?
If we are all wrong, if you didn't post the article as just another slam to Bush and got caught because the article (although the title was misleading, THERES A SHOCK) wasn't a slam to Bush...then what exactly were you trying to start a conversation about by only showing one side of an article that expresses both sides of the debate? here's you chance to ask the question and forward the debate...
What did you hope to discuss regarding this article?
Out of context???!!!! Hardly. The actual news article was headlined: "Native Americans Criticize Bush's Silence".
Did the paragpahs I posted convey a different impression? Hardly. Bush in fact remained publicly silent on this matter until yesterday!
I removed 11 paragraphs in order to stay within the suggested 4 paragaph limit. And none of the 11 removed paragraphs indicated that Bush had actually spoken out on this matter. That's because he didn't. So I don't think the posting was deceptive at all, especially since everyone on the board can, and apparently did, click on the link to read the entire article.
Now if I really wanted to "deceive people" I could used the tried and proven method used by so many posters. I could have submitted an "original" post, without links, selectively quoting an American Indian leader condeming Bush for not speaking out publicly, and left it at that. Now that's how you can spin a news article. Just quote parts of it without links to the actual article!
I noticed that method is frequently practiced on internet discussion boards, but I don't do that because such a method can in fact be deceptive.
And I might add that I have noticed other posters carefully editing their news stories in a simliar fashion. However, that's OK if they are conservatives and not liberals.
So why do some conservatives and right-wingers whine and cry so much about nothing? I guess they just find it difficult, if not impossible, to deal with a different point of view and they lack debating skills plus hard facts to defend their positions. Does anyone have a more reasonable explanation for their constant whining? I thought they were suppose to be tough.
I just had to address this. There were so many ridiculously stupid comments in it I felt it would be remiss of me to let it go.
ItsTheTruth, the article title is not the point. The point is, once you read the article, you discovered that the Bush Administration had indeed responded to the shooting, in a completely appropriate way. The article itself answered its own question: Why hasn't Bush responded? With an answer: Oh yeah, he did!
Your tirade about conservatives not appreciating other points of view is truly remarkable in the context of this thread because you are guilty of exactly what you are accussing conservatives of doing. You took an article which clearly discussed both sides of an issue...and completely disregarded the side that did not jive with your world view! And then you got angry and insulting when people pointed out that you had made a whole thread dedicated to bashing Bush for "ignoring" the Native American crisis...when the very article you pointed to disproved your entire point.
No one here was threatened by this article, nor are they threatened by you or your ideas...quite frankly, as this thread demonstrates, you haven't expressed any idea clearly or rationally enough to be taken seriously.
Conservatives and Libertarians and Right-Leaning Democrats and Others (there are more than just conservatives here, by the way) do not demand that everyone agree with them...just that they make sense and are honest about the information when they disagree. Now, I'll agree wholeheartedly that there are Conservatives here, and others, who are idiots who can't put a sentence together without spitting out insults and belittling people who disagree with them...but they get taken about as seriously as you do....so I wouldnt get too upset about them.
I've called several people out for misusing information, and I've seen OCA and others take several people (on both sides of the political spectrum) to task for linking incorrectly. But heres the thing, no one is stating that you linked incorrectly here, ItsTheTruth...just that you picked and choose in an obviously skewed and biased manner.
You posted an article that expressed several Native Americans views about how Bush was handling a situation and then discussed how Bush has handled the situation. However, you chose to only include the side that was negative for Bush...rather than doing what would have made this thread worthwhile....posting both sides and asking for a debate on whether or not Bush's response was adequate or appropriate, or even posting Bush's response and stating that you feel it wasn't enough...both of these, or something similar, would have gotten you a lively debate on whether or not Bush was doing the right thing in this situation.
But that obviously wasn't your intention...it was just to show that Bush wasn't doing anything about the crisis (which was a lie) because of his, "infrequent visits to the White House" (another lie). Your original thread and the subsequent retorts have demonstrated quite clearly that this, and not a measured, reasonable conversation regarding Bush's response to this matter, was what you were aiming for when you posted this thread. So please don't act surprised when you get a measured, reasonable conversation about your obvious agenda, rather than the topic you posted on (which, by the way, several people addressed WHILE discussing your posting style).
So in the sake of moving forward I'll ask you...whats the point? Did you really want to exchange ideas with people who hold an opinion different than your own? Or were you just excited to post another article that might be read as yet another Bush bash?
If we are all wrong, if you didn't post the article as just another slam to Bush and got caught because the article (although the title was misleading, THERES A SHOCK) wasn't a slam to Bush...then what exactly were you trying to start a conversation about by only showing one side of an article that expresses both sides of the debate? here's you chance to ask the question and forward the debate...
What did you hope to discuss regarding this article?