<< CATTLE BEG FOR LIVES ~ MAIN ~ BACK SOON >>
QUOTES OF AUGUST
* Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean:
I think if we had a three-word message right now it’d be, ‘We can do better.’
* Network Nine newsreader Ellen Fanning following Steve Forbes’ observation that Condi Rice would be an “infinitely superior” President to Hillary Clinton:
Believe him and we could have our first black single woman in the White House. That’ll be the day.
* And ALP treasury spokesman Wayne Swan, commenting on leadership tensions between John Howard and Peter Costello:
(We) cannot continue to have this level of instability at the senior level of the Government.
Swan’s party has changed leadership four times in nine years. The Liberal/National party coalition has had the same leader since 1995.
TOTALLY OFF-TOPIC . . . but I’ve been away for a few days and don’t know if there were any postings about Michelle Leslie converting to islam and wearing a burka.
Would you put a burka over this?
Posted by Young and Free on 2005 08 30 at 10:57 PM • permalinkI can help Ms. Rice with the single woman part, if she promises to wear the boots.
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2005 08 30 at 11:30 PM • permalinkWith selective quoting like that you should be a creationist. For anyone who cared to follow the link the actual quote is:
I think if we had a three-word message right now it’d be, `We can do better’--four-word message. So he realised as soon as he said it that it was four words not three and so corrected himself. Why then make an issue out of such a non-issue?Our chief weapon is suprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise....
Our two weapons are fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency....
Our *three* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope....
Our *four*...no…
*Amongst* our weapons....
Amongst our weaponry...are such elements as fear, surprise....
I’ll come in again.
jpaulg,
How does that response ‘cover’ my statement? Regardless of who made the statement this sort of selective quoting is wrong. In this case a quote is made by John Dean and this is then selectively quoted by Tim Blair. If the exact quote was made by George Bush and then this was misquoted by anyone then that, too, would be wrong. The fact is, this is Tim Blair’s blog and he has wrongly quoted someone whose words are there for all to see. So again, how does Dave S.’s comment ‘cover’ mine?
Skeptic - if Bush had made this fubar including the correction the MSM would be pumping it out every hour on the hour for the next month. Look at the good ole “plastic turkey” for Bush and the “Deputy Sherrif” for Howard - neither of which ever happened or where said but are still regularly rolled out by MSM and taken as gospel by many on the left.
Please confirm you understand that there was no plastic turkey and John Howard never said Australia was the USA’s Deputy Sherrif.
razor,
What is wrong with the posters on this website? The issue here is Dean’s comment and Blair’s misquote. That’s it. Not John Howard, not George Bush. Dean. Blair. Selective quoting. Got it? I don’t know of anyone who has claimed that John Howard ever stated that Australia was the USA’s Deputy Sherrif (sic) and I would seriously doubt anyone who said he had. I know many people have claimed this as Australia’s role but that is not the same as claiming Howard said it. Perhaps you could provide some evidence that people have claimed Howard uttered this line? Again, for the record, I do NOT believe he ever said Australia was the U.S.’s Deputy Sheriff. As for the plastic turkey, you will have to expand on that.
NOIR,
Ok, let me make this nice and simple for you because you obviously were not being facetious. When you say
the three-word message was in fact an inane seven-word message.
I assume you are including the words four-word message? These are not part of his message that he refers to, that is the four words in inverted commas. Do you understand this? If not, why delineate at the quote marks, why not start counting from the word message?
Sigh…OBTUSE ALERT!!!! OBTUSE ALERT!!!!
Warning, the poster known as “Skeptic” is displaying all the symptoms of obtuseness. Please respond to his/hers/its comments accordingly.
That is all.
OBTUSE ALERT!!!! OBTUSE ALERT!!!!
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 08 31 at 12:49 AM • permalinkDave S.
Thanks for the link. As I said, I have never believed that Howard actually made that statement but I didn’t realise that some thought he had. Obviously, they are wrong.
Larrikin,
Whether or not Dean is a fool, and regardless of whether people think he is a fool, does that allow for selective quoting? Shouldn’t the fool be the person who has misquoted?
And why does no-one else take Tim to task for this? Why shoot the messenger?Obtuse Alert?
How exactly I am being obtuse? By going to the source of a quote and stating the facts? By not agreeing with Tim? By daring to be critical?
Is this really the levels this blog soars too? Is there anyone out there who can see the error with Tim’s comment about Dean? Are there any individuals out there who can think for themselves?*yawn*
Do you often have people tell you you’re wound too tight, Skeptic?
Posted by Spiny Norman on 2005 08 31 at 01:05 AM • permalinkSpiny Norman,
I was under the impression that this was a good blog and I expected robust discussion, not straw men and ad hominem attacks.
If I now, for example, made some asinine comment about you, are misquoted you and then you took me to task, I would hardly say you were tightly wound.
On an unrelated note, as an MP fan I do appreciate your user name.
: )Razor,
great to see you have responded to my post. What a towering intellect you have. Please reply to my comment directed to you by addressing the issue here. Or are you unable? And how exactly do I give sceptics a bad name? Or is this just a bald assertion with nothing to back it up? Did I not start my post by being sceptical of Tim’s original comment? Did I believe him or did I follow up the link he provided? Do you know the definition of sceptic?
OOps! for a moment there I thought your nic was ‘Septic’. Note to self - wear reading glasses.
Posted by Lucky Nutsacks on 2005 08 31 at 01:41 AM • permalinkIf Tim were deliberately misquoting Howlin’ Howie and trying to hide the context of the Dean gaffe, which appears to be the gist of your argument, would he have provided a link to the original source?
Pedant, rather than skeptic?
Posted by Spiny Norman on 2005 08 31 at 01:46 AM • permalinkMy apologies for our frisky friends here Skeptic, it’s late afternoon and we’re all a little playful.
Your serious question deserves a serious answer.
It is this: Howard Dean mispoke. Tim is poking fun at him. It is meant as an aside, a discussion starter, not necessarily a critique of the American Democratic Party in one sentence.
If you wish to advance a debate on the future of the Democrats (either in the US, Australia or both), I’m sure there are a number of people here who would be happy to contribute.
-- Nora
Posted by The Thin Man Returns on 2005 08 31 at 01:53 AM • permalinkSpiny,
I have no more insight into Tim’s mind than you do. Perhaps Tim could enlighten the forum. What I do know is that under the heading “Quotes of August” he misquotes Dean and then others comment on how silly is Dean, he can’t even count etc. To me, it looks like Tim is trying to ridicule Dean but is only displaying his own dishonesty. Perhaps he did not think anyone would follow the link but as I said, I don’t know his reasoning. Tim, where are you? And if being accurate with your quoting makes me a pedant, guilty as charged.
Skeptic:
How was Dean misquoted? Tim posted exactly what Dean said.
And when you say, “but that’s not all he said, and it’s unfair of Tim to post just that little bit as it paints Dean in a bad light,” we say, “...which is what the mainstream media has been doing to Bush for years.”
“Now, watch this drive.”—Ring any bells?
David,
So according to you, it’s unfair to misquote someone like Bush but fair to misquote Dean? I am not the mainstream media so address my argument. Selective misquoting is wrong, regardless of who’s quoting who. Surely that’s not so difficult to understand? Why this unseemly desire to protect Tim? Tim selectively quoted Dean by choosing to omit the last few words of his comment and therefore leave the impression in reader’s minds that Dean cannot count.
OK Skepo. On the selective quoting issue - Firstly, it is done all the time on all sides of politics - nothing new there. If the selectivity is shown to change the meaning of something then it is clearly wrong. In this case, supported by Dean’s correction, Dean stuffed up - he couldn’t count four words. He deserves all the piss-taking that he gets given how morally superior he holds himself out to be. And, if you weren’t already aware, most of this site’s content is all about piss taking and the Left continually leave themselves wide-open for piss-taking because a. the stupid things they say and believe, and b. they take themselves so seriously.
You give sceptics a bad name because a. using the american spelling (only joking), b. giving aid and succour to a political WMD like Howard Dean, whose nickname should be Persistent Nerve Agent, demonstrates that you lack the logical reasoning to be taken seriously as a sceptic.
Oh, and do a search of this site for plastic turkeys and stay out of the way of D10s and similar.
OK, a serious but general question to the posters on this forum. Is there ever any debate on this forum or is it just a group hug sort of thing? I mean, if you don’t like what someone says, focus on the words not the person. Such puerile and juvenile comments like Do you take any medication for it? and Your mother didn’t hug you enough, did she? say more about the person making the comment than it does about the person to whom the comment is directed. Does anyone here, anyone, engage in rational, mature debate? If the answer is “No, it’s just a group hug and we don’t like reasonable and rational debate” then that’s fine, at least I know what to expect.
Indeed, Skeptic, 11 comments and counting, I’m sure. I know you’re upset that things in this world aren’t the way you want them to be, but do you see how this little temper tantrum of yours only makes you look more and more foolish?
Get a little control over those cute little sobs and maybe you can have a seat at the Big People table one day.
Tim selectively quoted Dean by choosing to omit the last few words of his comment and therefore leave the impression in reader’s minds that Dean cannot count.
Thank you for the assumption that regular readers of this blog can’t think for themselves.
And seeing as how you can’t even confess to seeing our point, there’s no point in even trying to reason with you anymore.
A question Skeptic:
Your quote: "unfair to misquote someone like Bush but fair to misquote Dean".
What do you mean by saying someone like Bush?
Was it intentional to add the word like between ‘misquote’ and ‘Bush’ and differentiate between ‘misquote’ and Dean?
I find it very interesting that people on the left do that.
It is as though they can keep the US President (or other conservative) at arm’s length if they say “someone like Bush”.
Is that a true assumption Skeptic?
-- Nora
Posted by The Thin Man Returns on 2005 08 31 at 02:13 AM • permalinkSkeptic, if you were interested in a meaningful debate, you wouldn’t have complained that Tim “misquoted” Dean, as he didn’t.
Tim directly quoted Dean. Not out of context, not selected. But it was focused.
YOU are the one banging on about “misquoting”. YOU are the one complaining that Dean is being dissed. As Nora pointed out, YOU commented “...someone like Bush...”, a turn of phrase you don’t apply to Dean.
Plus, oddly enough!, you don’t get the point after posting a dozen times. More accurately, you say that you don’t get the point.
(BTW, you should look up the definition of ‘obtuse’.)
So, you’ve made your point, clearly. We just don’t agree. If you can’t accept that, read this.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 08 31 at 02:30 AM • permalinkCareful, david, he’ll return to correct your spelling of the word “scared”. You know, in order to lift the level of discourse or something. FOR THE SAKE OF REASON!
It’s really sad that the people who try to pull these little internet theatre skits to show how we cannot tolerate alternate points of view are themselves so unable to understand our basic view points enough to actually engage any of us in any real way. They don’t even TRY. We SURE as hell don’t agree on everything around here, but because we tend to agree on a few things that they can’t even possibly begin to comprehend, it’s all Greek to them.
Unable to figure out how to open the door and come in, they just press their bare asses against the window to be noticed. And then they claim we’re the dumb ones.
Sortelli,
Do you mean to say all that time Bryla was just mooning us? LMAO!
Posted by Spiny Norman on 2005 08 31 at 02:46 AM • permalinkSkeptic,
Accuracy encourages, and pedantry impedes reasoned and rational debate.if you don’t like what someone says, focus on the words not the person. Such puerile and juvenile comments like Do you take any medication for it? and Your mother didn’t hug you enough, did she? say more about the person making the comment than it does about the person to whom the comment is directed.
Ah, a perfect executed indirect ad-hominem attack! Extra points awarded for the semantically loaded words “puerile” and “juvenile”.
The fact that I agree with you on that point is immaterial. Those who demand perfection had better be very sure they don’t commit the sins they preach against. Like making disparaging remarks about others.If you do that you’re an idiot
Of course, it helps not to take oneself quite so seriously.Why was there so many comments on an alleged “misquoting” of Dean, where the full quote, which Tim linked to, clearly SUPPORTED TIM’S INTERPRETATION OF THE QUOTE.
As in, Dean stuffed up with how many words he was going to say. Whether he made a hasty correction later or not is irrelevant.
Posted by Quentin George on 2005 08 31 at 02:55 AM • permalinkYeah, Quentin. Just imagine what the MSM would do if Bush suddenly revised his pronunciation of “nuclear”.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 08 31 at 03:03 AM • permalink#52 You are obsolutely right Sortelli.
We don’t always agree on everything here but what I do enjoy is the good natured ribbing that goes on as well as the intelligent and reasoned points of view of the regular crew.
-- Nora
Posted by The Thin Man Returns on 2005 08 31 at 03:20 AM • permalinkRe #57: Don’t worry, Sortelli. We still loves ya!
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 08 31 at 03:29 AM • permalinkNora, I often think that the good natured ribbing that goes on here is a hallmark of an open and intelligent thinker. People who know the difference between humor (genuinely funny or just sarcasm) and serious conversation are, IMHO, able to tell reality from fantasy, plus they don’t take themselves overly serious....or know when to ease back on the throttles when they are getting too serious.
It’s very telling that some people simply can’t accept anything but serious conversation, as they often seem to be clearly leaning left.
I wonder what the correlation is between a sense of humor and political leaning? Not that we’ll ever know—defining “sense of humor” could be a doctoral thesis unto itself.
Take me for example: I think this is the ultimate in stage props.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 08 31 at 03:38 AM • permalinkSkeptic (duh):"And why does no-one else take Tim to task for this?"
zeppenwolf to the rescue!
Tim, (Mr Blair, sir):
For clipping Mr Deans quote, I sentence you (or your mother) to eat 100,000 dead civilian plastic deputy shurrif turkeys!
Serious Time:
Does anyone here, anyone, engage in rational, mature debate?
Well, it happens, yes. To be honest, conservatives have a near monopoly on what you’re describing. If you were one, especially one who read here consistently, you’d see that precisely because we’ve been around that block, there comes a time and an inclination to make light of things and not bother with outlining serious points we’ve all been over a million times before.
It DOESN’T matter that Dean corrected himself afterward; the gaffe stands.
Is that a big deal? No, not on the surface. For one thing, we aren’t the RNC here-- we’re not formulating national policy based on dumb things Dean said.
But there’s more to the post than the surface, which, again, you would know if you were a conservative, let alone one who read here consistently:
DESPITE your protest to the contrary, it IS relevant that Bush would have been crucified for the same mistake. That is the implied context here, which all of us understand without needing to say it. And yes, that difference is a serious, if tedious topic about which little new needs to be said.
And finally, regarding your objection that “although Tim gave the link, he knew that maybe people wouldn’t follow it” or somesuch, that is about as bend-over-around-your-elbow-to get-to-your-ass as it gets.
So give it a rest. You want to have a serious debate? Ok. Pick a serious subject.
But understand that we’re not always serious here. Try Belmont Club-- he’s so serious he’ll suck your liberal tofu-caked arteries dry.
Posted by zeppenwolf on 2005 08 31 at 04:30 AM • permalinkSkeptic, two can play at this game.
#40 “Why..I am… so difficult to understand?”
#37 “I have no...insight into...own dishonesty.”
#32 “great to see...a bad...bald...sceptic… with nothing to back it up..”
#18 “Ok, let me make this...facetious...I assume...These are not part of...message...Sigh...”
#16 “John Howard...was the USA’s Deputy Sherrif (sic)...What is wrong with the...Dean...selective quoting...?...I don’t know of anyone...that...could provide some evidence that… Again,...I do...the plastic turkey”#31 “... bring on the plastic turkey...”
I think I just hurt something laughing…
OT, but loosely on the subject of people that love to dish it out but can’t take it, reviewer on SBS Movie Show got his knickers in a huge knot over some vaguely boring Kurt Cobain(?) movie.
It wasn’t fawningly reverential enough or something. Which is funny considering that they’ll drool over the most grossly offensive stuff, as long as it’s offending… well, you can guess who.
(Although to be fair, the almost bearable one nailed him for it. I wonder how long she’ll last?)
It’s very telling that some people simply can’t accept anything but serious conversation, as they often seem to be clearly leaning left.
Cute approach though: Waltz into a thread that had “not to be taken too seriously” written all over it right from the start (as Tim’s brieflet type of posts usually do), then whine when people don’t feel like playing along with your vacuous attempts at “serious” debate over something utterly inconsequential.
We’ve run into quote-Skeptic-unquote before, haven’t we?
I dunno, but the email address looked familiar to me for some reason, though I can’t place it right now.
Wow, sorry I missed this. I can’t decide whether Skeptic is a MENSAn bitter about working for people so much dumber than he is, or a tenured professor…
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2005 08 31 at 10:08 AM • permalinkDude… dpmc.gov.au is the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. Wonder if “Skeptic” might be the source of some of the embarassing leaks for the Howard Administration?
Posted by Tatterdemalian on 2005 08 31 at 10:20 AM • permalinkRe, #75: If so, Tatterdemalian, I wondered if Skeptic blogged from work. Could be interesting if he did.......
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 08 31 at 10:59 AM • permalinkHey Howie-
How ‘bout this-
“We cannot do better.”
Probably more true- still doesn’t help with “the count”...
Four words- how about four letters?
Howie: I think if we had a four letter message right now it would be- “Cindy”.
{Wait-crap that was five letters-what’s a four letter word to describe that Demo plan..?}
Posted by madawaskan on 2005 08 31 at 01:41 PM • permalink"that Demo plan..?”
I can describe all democratic plans in one four-letter word: Dumb.
Elizabeth
Imperial KeeperPosted by Elizabeth Imperial Keeper on 2005 08 31 at 02:18 PM • permalink#22, JeffS, not just obtuse, but obdurately obtuse, the worst kind. ;->=
Well Dean just proves my point: There are three kinds of people in the world, those who can count and those who can’t.
Posted by JorgXMcKie on 2005 08 31 at 03:17 PM • permalinkAny chance Skeptic is really Peter Costello? Would explain why Howard has no time for him…
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2005 08 31 at 07:31 PM • permalinkSolipsists-Yea Tongueboy. I’ve been waiting to give my favorite ditty for a long time.
The wise in every age conclude
What Phyrro taught and Hume renewed
That dogmatists are foolsRoughly speaking, Solipsism is the belief that no reality exists outside of one’s own mind.
Phyrro(sp?) of Elia was reported to have died because he sat down in the middle of a road and couldn’t move because he was so confused about the outside world.
I don’t think that is the case with our furry friends. I think their feelings of granduer exists solely in their own minds- a difference.
They also like to base conclusions on facts not yet in evidence, i.e. creating their own reality. The Kipper at #’s 42 &65 are good examples.
Long post sorry.
Just as a hypothetical exercise, assume one of the following applies:
a) I’m too dim to penetrate the intellectual subtlety of your remarks,
or
b) You’re not making any sense…
...and enlighten me—grandeur, blatant, furry friends, reality in their own minds—what the heck are you talking about...?
(...in words a simple fellow like me can understand.)
I didn’t mean this to turn into a spat, which is kind of boring for others, so sorry about that, guys.
But it reminded me of a funny thing (totally OT)— the time I was insulted at a party by my (then) Japanese uncle-in-law-to-be while he was drunk. It was the darndest thing. It was obvious that he was doing his best to either insult me, or at least put me firmly in my place, but I couldn’t understand a single thing he was saying.
In the end, I remained uninsulted, and all he got was a puzzled smile and a “thank you, sir, thank you very much.”
I think it was interesting what Fanning said about her interview with Pauline Hanson.
That is, that she approached it with bias.
Such an attitude undoubtedly helped Hanson’s movement rather than hindered it.
While the concept of neutrality is piffle, journalists should learn that Australians are more than capable of making up their own mind and they should retain some distance.
As for Condi Rice, hmmmm, she ain’t gunna be President.
Posted by Major Anya on 2005 09 01 at 03:50 AM • permalink
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
Dean’s rhetoric is not only inflammatory, it’s inflationary.