Florida to Screw up 2004 Election?

[debeest]

It's not hindsight, it's foresight. The written reports did not say "hijack planes and fly them into buildings," but they did say "hijack planes" and they did say "crash planes into the Pentagon." I think it's fair to say that no one clearly anticipated suicide flights, but it's also reasonable to wonder how they were going to crash planes into buildings any other way. I'm surprised you haven't seen the mainstream media reporting of these fairly detailed reports.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Let's look at the August 6th report Presidential Briefing (which is the 'fairly detailed report') [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4710772/ for reference]

We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a ... (redacted portion) ... service in 1998 saying that Bin Ladin wanted to hijack a US aircraft to gain the release of “Blind Shaykh” ’Umar ’Abd al-Rahman and other US-held extremists.

The report says nothing about crashing planes into the Pentagon.

[debeest]

There were many such warnings; I'm not going to look them all up for you just because you haven't been paying attention. Jumping back to the threadjacking topic of Cynthia McKinney, still no one has produced any actual quote similar to those that she was slandered with, any factually erroneous quote, or any speculation or recommendation that were not entirely reasonable based on the available facts.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I'm not going to look them all up for you just because you haven't been paying attention.

Translation: I'm making **** up

Jumping back to the threadjacking topic of Cynthia McKinney, still no one has produced any actual quote similar to those that she was slandered with, any factually erroneous quote, or any speculation or recommendation that were not entirely reasonable based on the available facts.

Sorry, but she implied that Bush willfully ignored 9/11 intelligence in order for his friends to get rich. It's clear as day.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Bush had concrete information that terrorists were going to hijack planes and fly them into buildings?

They were seperate items.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Sorry, but she implied that Bush willfully ignored 9/11 intelligence in order for his friends to get rich. It's clear as day.

IMPLIED???

Then it would be a lie for you to say she said it, becuase even you only say "she implied";which of course is your interpretation of what she says, not what she actually said.

If you say : "I think BUsh is great", I could "imply" you support Bush, hence his policies, hence you support the Iraq war. Could I then say "Imran said he supports the war"? NO, becuase that is NOT what you said, and I can not read minds, and devoid of any other data, I could not state as a quote something I belive you implied.

UNless you don;t know what implied means.

[Imran Siddiqui]

It was a blatent implication. How come just about everyone came to same conclusion about where she was headed? Because there is no other conclusion which can be reached.

[GePap]

IT DOES NOT MATTER. all reports said "she said the president knew". She never actually said it. I don;t care if EVERYONE makes the same assumption- if you say "peson X said this", then you better be able to find the exact place in which those exact words came out of her mouth. Otherwise, you better start putting qualifiers, which was not done.

[GePap]

and you are studying law

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yes and we learn the implications and intentions of what people put on paper or say. You know, reading between the lines?

You are fighting a losing battle. Everyone knows what she meant. She thought she may get away with it by being cute. The voters said no way, Jose, you crazy loon.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Yes and we learn the implications and intentions of what people put on paper or say. You know, reading between the lines?

You are fighting a losing battle. Everyone knows what she meant. She thought she may get away with it by being cute. The voters said no way, Jose, you crazy loon.

"Everyone knows what she meant. " HOW? Are they telepaths? Do they read minds? Reading between the lines? newflash-the only person putting things between the lines are those "doing the reading". This is THE WORST possible behavior out there, assuming what someone said-sorry, you only have the exact things they said to go on. Fine, people are free to make their minds up themselves-if they whish to be ASSES and assume things, their perogative-but the papers did NOT report on what she said verbatim, but made asses of themselves and assumed. That is BAD JOURNALISM.

As for the voters-how many read the actual comments?

On all the discussions we have on subjectivity, and you still don;t get it?

[Imran Siddiqui]

What the Hell does this have to do with subjectivity? In fact it is consistent. If a majority of people believe she implied something, then it is so. For being involved with politics, you sure come off as naive. You don't think politicians imply things all the time? So you think 'Willie Horton' was just about crime, not about race at all? After all, if you assume 'Willie Horton' was about race then you are assuming! Oops.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
What the Hell does this have to do with subjectivity? In fact it is consistent. If a majority of people believe she implied something, then it is so. For being involved with politics, you sure come off as naive. You don't think politicians imply things all the time? So you think 'Willie Horton' was just about crime, not about race at all? After all, if you assume 'Willie Horton' was about race then you are assuming! Oops.

This is NOT a question of what people believed-who cares? It is a question of what was reported. Massive difference.

Being with a politican, I KNOW that what matters is what we SAY< and we want to make sure to be quoted correctly by the press. Words are chosen for a reason-fine, people will intepret, but we want what we said, not someone elses notion of what we said being reported, becuase that way, maybe what we meant (yes, we who actually said it) might be picked up by the public. If some biased reporter interupts that line between us and the public to inject their bias and worse of all, incorrectly quote, then we would be rightfully livid. The press can annylize all it wants- just report what was actually said as well, not making **** up.

[GePap]

As for facts, the only fact here is that we know Imran believes she was implying X, or that DD believes she was implying X, or a bunch of people believed she was implying X.Until you or DD or anyone can find a credible first hand source that has those exact words coming out of her mouth, then no, you have no facts, Only your assumptions of meaning, and we all know about people who make assumptions, no?

[DinoDoc]

Yep. Surreal.