josh marshall has this as the final word "they didnt boo... I give Bush and the crowd their due." http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_08_29.php#003426 josh is generally pretty/really good cept im on g's side with this one. no-one 'oohs' - and if anyone was ooo-ing - it certainly wouldnt be repugs re the reviled clinton.
re are they effing kiding u? yep!
re 'How stupid do they take us to be?! a lot, and apparently justifiably. (i edited the language so that it doesnt bounce at pams acct)
re AP - u r rite - they are sposed to have clean hands - but i picked up their evilness a long long time ago.
and yep, the scariest thing as always isnt the actual lie, but the mechanisms that allow it to happen
yep
yep
and yep
(in case u all hadnt noticed, i assume that responses like this one of g's are free to be resent to the other 3 of u - i also try to publish most of my emails to wotisitgood4 - but i strip out the identifiers - therefore if any of u send something that is pertinent to the whole bush thing then ill assume i can repeat it to the others unless i hear otherwise)
the funny thing about the b/ooing is that its odd that they draw a line anywhere - as arbitrary and meaningless as this one is. trashing the record of all vets is noprob. trying to impeach a pres for blowjobbing is noprob. criting a president for a stupid war is treason. they'd trash carter in an instant...
if theres no moral compass, then everything is bound to be stupid.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Adam
Date: Sat, 4 Sep 2004 00:59:17 -0400
To: "Luke Ryland"
Subject: Boos and Ooohs...
> OK, this story has even optimistic Adam thinking something really weird is
> going on...
>
> First we hear about the sophomoric, petty response of the Bush crowd to news
> of Clintons' recovery
>
> "Bush Offers Best Wishes to Clinton, Audience Boos"
> http://cbsnewyork.com/water/watercooler_story_247163112.html
> Sounds petty, but completely believable...
>
> Then we hear that the AP had "uncertainties about how to characterize the
> crowd's reaction"
> http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=10006
> 24935
>
>
> ...and now we're supposed to believe they didn't "Boo", but they "Oooh"ed?
>
> "The crowd reacted with applause and with some "ooohs", apparently surprised
> by the news that Clinton was ill"
> http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2004/09/03/politic
> s1354EDT0608.DTL
>
>
> ARE YOU FUrCKING KIDDING ME!!!???
>
> How stupid do they take us to be?! When was the last time you heard anyone
> "oooh" (outside of an episode of Married with Children)? Who 'oooh's?
> Nobody! If they were truly surprised, they would have 'fallen silent' or
> 'mumble, mumbled', but not "ooohed". It's not like they were being shown a
> golden replica of Saddam's gun, or a diamond pulled from Osama's ass...it
> was a condolence wish!
>
> The scariest thing about all this, of course, is what went on behind the
> scene to get this story changed. Who's head was going to roll if this bit
> of negative news aired, and who was doing the chopping? I can understand
> Fox revising their story for optimal spin, but the Associated Press? Aren't
> they supposed to be the bland, neutral news provider in all of this? Is
> this a foreshadowing of the censorship and editing that we can expect to
> imagine if Bush is re-elected?
>
> It's a little thing, but maybe it's the canary in the coal mine...
>
________________________________________________________________________________
four more tears. four more tears.
wotisitgood4.blogspot.com
No comments:
Post a Comment