You just double down whenever someone calls you on *anything.* Let me try to type slower: He used the word, "reports." This is a word we might use when we're not willing/able to say the content of the reports is or is not verified.
We have reports of a train derailment ....
Whatever the reasoning behind using the word "reports," this train derailment may or may not be factual, you can't just go on talking about it as if it happened. To then say this train derailment is really messing up traffic, that would be premature. It might be false. To say it may be messing up traffic, well that's precise language.
When he used the word "reports," he was then compelled to use similar phrasing when referring to the content of the "reports."
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Jul 23, 2014 - 7:13pm
kurtster wrote:
I was the first to post a timeline of the Reagan event. Backscroll.
You are obtuse. How can a commercial plane crash never be a tragedy ?
I just did. In your post in which you linked to the Reagan speech you stated that Reagan immediately cancelled his vacation to take on the issue head- on. You then state the video of his statement shows what could become immediately known even back then when technology was not as advanced as today. Not once did you state that the speech came 4 days after the plane went down. I was the one who pointed that out as did Scottn, I believe. i guess Reagan did not think it important enough to comment on before the 4th day?
Your frothing about Obama's initial statement as if it caused stock markets to crash and other plagues Is not only unsupported by facts, it is irrational. You keep alternating between saying it is unimportant and of supreme importance. make up your mind.
i give you more credit than what your arguments on this issue normally would be due. I attribute it to your inability to concede a point or admit you had it wrong. Find a mirror and practice saying: "I was wrong about that."
You are worried about facts being misrepresented? We have been over the ground of why he used the word "may" in the hours immediately following the crash of the plane. The statement cited in the article was made by Obama on Day Two. You (and others) were still carping about the initial statement well after that statement made on Day Two. . Reagan's statement did not come immediately, as you (and others) erroneously claimed. It came 4 days after the plane went down.
You may see it as leadership that Reagan did not understand the need to cut short his vacation, and only did so because aides implored him to do so, but I do not. In fact, it turns the notion of leadership on its head. He did not lead, he had to be told what to do. You have to understand the difference, so I am going to assume you are just refusing to acknowledge your initial misstatements and unsupported conclusions.
I was the first to post a timeline of the Reagan event. Backscroll.
You are obtuse. How can a commercial plane crash never be a tragedy ?
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Jul 23, 2014 - 12:40pm
kurtster wrote:
For the last time. The initial comment was that this "may be a terrible tragedy". Calling the incident an “outrage of unspeakable proportions.” came the next day. It was not the initial comment. Let's keep facts straight. It was all about one word "may". That is where all this begins and ends. Similar to what the meaning of the word is, is. The one word Obama used, may stopped the presses and there was an immediate whiplash across the board and reflected in the markets as well as the news. You may not consider what word choices mean to the markets and foreign nations and other entities, but this is what matters. And it is a legitimate concern especially when the president must suck up everything he has just to say the T word out loud.
Obama absolved himself with the speech the following day. And the comparisons to Reagan have largely faded away. Your article misleads the reader into thinking that the comparisons mostly came after the WH speech and not before. Had Obama at least said it is instead of it may, then nothing much would have been said between the initial comment and the WH speech.
This is the leader of the free world we're talking about. Every word he say's formally matters.
your mileage obviously varies ...
. Edit: After thinking a bit, I'm glad your article brought out the way Reagan's vacation was cancelled. It shows that Reagan was not surrounded by Yes Men, too afraid or too joined at the hip with tell him he was wrong and needed to do something that he thought differently on. And he listened to them and went back to DC to do what he was elected to do; be President even if it meant cutting a vacation short. The nation's business did come first. That's a leader.
You are worried about facts being misrepresented? We have been over the ground of why he used the word "may" in the hours immediately following the crash of the plane. The statement cited in the article was made by Obama on Day Two. You (and others) were still carping about the initial statement well after that statement made on Day Two. . Reagan's statement did not come immediately, as you (and others) erroneously claimed. It came 4 days after the plane went down.
You may see it as leadership that Reagan did not understand the need to cut short his vacation, and only did so because aides implored him to do so, but I do not. In fact, it turns the notion of leadership on its head. He did not lead, he had to be told what to do. You have to understand the difference, so I am going to assume you are just refusing to acknowledge your initial misstatements and unsupported conclusions.
Facts do not appear to support the contention that Obama's initial reactions to the shooting down of Malaysian airliner in Ukraine paled in comparison to Reagan's initial reactions to the downing of a Korean airliner in the Soviet Union in 1983.
Sometimes, ‘What Would Reagan Do?’ is the wrong question
After the public learned last week that Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 had been shot down, killing all 298 people on board, it wasn’t long before an obvious comparison came to mind: in September 1983, a Russian fighter jet shot down Korean Air Lines Flight 007. The attack left 269 passengers and crew dead, 62 of whom were American, including a member of Congress.
Olivia Kittel noted that for many Republicans, President Obama should not only follow Ronald Reagan’s example from 31 years ago, but also that Obama is already falling short of the Reagan example.
In the wake of a Malaysia Airlines jetliner crash, Fox News has rushed to conveniently rewrite history to disparage President Obama by drawing false comparisons to former President Ronald Reagan’s response to a 1983 attack on a Korean airliner.
After Fox News said Obama wasn’t Reagan-esque enough, plenty of other conservatives soon followed.
Let’s take a brief stroll down memory lane in case some have forgotten what actually happened in 1983.
After the Soviet pilot killed 269 people on a civilian airliner, Reagan’s aides didn’t bother to wake him up to tell him what happened. When the president was eventually briefed on developments, Reagan, who was on vacation in California at the time, announced he did not intend to cut his trip short. (Reagan’s aides later convinced him to return to the White House.)
Last week, Obama delivered a public address on the Malaysia Airlines plane about 24 hours after it was shot down, calling the incident an “outrage of unspeakable proportions.” Reagan also delivered stern words, but in contrast, he waited four days to deliver public remarks.
On the July 17 edition of Fox News’ The Kelly File, host Megyn Kelly connected the July 17 tragedy to the 1983 Korean airliner crash, highlighting Reagan’s speech in response and noting in comparison that Obama has “been accused of ‘leading from behind.’ ” Fox contributor Chris Stirewalt compared Reagan’s response to Obama’s, saying Reagan’s response made Americans feel “reassured and resolute,” and Kelly echoed that Obama’s response “makes him look unconnected and makes a lot of Americans feel unrepresented.”
Such comparisons applauding Reagan’s 1983 response to attack Obama have reverberated throughout Fox News. Andrew Napolitano invoked Reagan’s response to insist Obama should “get on national television and call Vladimir Putin a killer.” Fox correspondent Peter Johnson Jr. said of Obama, “I think the president needs to take a page out of Ronald Reagan,” while Fox strategic analyst Ralph Peters suggested Obama’s strategy should reflect “clear speech, a la Ronald Reagan, backed up by firm action and with follow-through.”
This over-the-top Reagan worship isn’t just wrong; it’s ironic. In 1983, some of the prominent conservative media voices of the day actually complained bitterly that Reagan’s response was wholly inadequate.
George Will – yes, that George Will – called the Reagan White House’s arguments “pathetic” at the time, insisting, “It’s time for to act.”
The president responded publicly with rhetoric that made the president sound rather helpless. “Short of going to war, what would they have us do?” Reagan said. “I know that some of our critics have sounded off that somehow we haven’t exacted enough vengeance. Well, vengeance isn’t the name of the game in this.”
One wonders what the reaction would have been from the right and the Beltway media if Obama responded with similar rhetoric to a comparable situation.
For the last time. The initial comment was that this "may be a terrible tragedy". Calling the incident an “outrage of unspeakable proportions.” came the next day. It was not the initial comment. Let's keep facts straight. It was all about one word "may". That is where all this begins and ends. Similar to what the meaning of the word is, is. The one word Obama used, may stopped the presses and there was an immediate whiplash across the board and reflected in the markets as well as the news. You may not consider what word choices mean to the markets and foreign nations and other entities, but this is what matters. And it is a legitimate concern especially when the president must suck up everything he has just to say the T word out loud.
Obama absolved himself with the speech the following day. And the comparisons to Reagan have largely faded away. Your article misleads the reader into thinking that the comparisons mostly came after the WH speech and not before. Had Obama at least said it is instead of it may, then nothing much would have been said between the initial comment and the WH speech.
This is the leader of the free world we're talking about. Every word he say's formally matters.
your mileage obviously varies ...
. Edit: After thinking a bit, I'm glad your article brought out the way Reagan's vacation was cancelled. It shows that Reagan was not surrounded by Yes Men, too afraid or too joined at the hip with tell him he was wrong and needed to do something that he thought differently on. And he listened to them and went back to DC to do what he was elected to do; be President even if it meant cutting a vacation short. The nation's business did come first. That's a leader.
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Jul 23, 2014 - 11:36am
Facts do not appear to support the contention that Obama's initial reactions to the shooting down of Malaysian airliner in Ukraine paled in comparison to Reagan's initial reactions to the downing of a Korean airliner in the Soviet Union in 1983.
Sometimes, ‘What Would Reagan Do?’ is the wrong question
After the public learned last week that Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 had been shot down, killing all 298 people on board, it wasn’t long before an obvious comparison came to mind: in September 1983, a Russian fighter jet shot down Korean Air Lines Flight 007. The attack left 269 passengers and crew dead, 62 of whom were American, including a member of Congress.
Olivia Kittel noted that for many Republicans, President Obama should not only follow Ronald Reagan’s example from 31 years ago, but also that Obama is already falling short of the Reagan example.
In the wake of a Malaysia Airlines jetliner crash, Fox News has rushed to conveniently rewrite history to disparage President Obama by drawing false comparisons to former President Ronald Reagan’s response to a 1983 attack on a Korean airliner.
After Fox News said Obama wasn’t Reagan-esque enough, plenty of other conservatives soon followed.
Let’s take a brief stroll down memory lane in case some have forgotten what actually happened in 1983.
After the Soviet pilot killed 269 people on a civilian airliner, Reagan’s aides didn’t bother to wake him up to tell him what happened. When the president was eventually briefed on developments, Reagan, who was on vacation in California at the time, announced he did not intend to cut his trip short. (Reagan’s aides later convinced him to return to the White House.)
Last week, Obama delivered a public address on the Malaysia Airlines plane about 24 hours after it was shot down, calling the incident an “outrage of unspeakable proportions.” Reagan also delivered stern words, but in contrast, he waited four days to deliver public remarks.
On the July 17 edition of Fox News’ The Kelly File, host Megyn Kelly connected the July 17 tragedy to the 1983 Korean airliner crash, highlighting Reagan’s speech in response and noting in comparison that Obama has “been accused of ‘leading from behind.’ ” Fox contributor Chris Stirewalt compared Reagan’s response to Obama’s, saying Reagan’s response made Americans feel “reassured and resolute,” and Kelly echoed that Obama’s response “makes him look unconnected and makes a lot of Americans feel unrepresented.”
Such comparisons applauding Reagan’s 1983 response to attack Obama have reverberated throughout Fox News. Andrew Napolitano invoked Reagan’s response to insist Obama should “get on national television and call Vladimir Putin a killer.” Fox correspondent Peter Johnson Jr. said of Obama, “I think the president needs to take a page out of Ronald Reagan,” while Fox strategic analyst Ralph Peters suggested Obama’s strategy should reflect “clear speech, a la Ronald Reagan, backed up by firm action and with follow-through.”
This over-the-top Reagan worship isn’t just wrong; it’s ironic. In 1983, some of the prominent conservative media voices of the day actually complained bitterly that Reagan’s response was wholly inadequate.
George Will – yes, that George Will – called the Reagan White House’s arguments “pathetic” at the time, insisting, “It’s time for to act.”
The president responded publicly with rhetoric that made the president sound rather helpless. “Short of going to war, what would they have us do?” Reagan said. “I know that some of our critics have sounded off that somehow we haven’t exacted enough vengeance. Well, vengeance isn’t the name of the game in this.”
One wonders what the reaction would have been from the right and the Beltway media if Obama responded with similar rhetoric to a comparable situation.
The New York Times (7/22/14) didn't mince words in its editorial on the shooting down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17: "Whoever unleashed a lethal missile not knowing how to distinguish between a military and a civilian plane is not only irresponsible and stupid, but a war criminal."
That seems pretty unequivocal. But if you look at the New York Times' archives, you'll see that some people who unleash lethal missiles without knowing how to distinguish between military and civilian planes aren't irresponsible, stupid or criminal–they're just doing what they had to do. Of course, if you're going to shoot down a civilian jetliner–from the Times' point of view–it helps to be working for the US Navy when you do it.
When the Navy shot down Iran Air 655 over the Persian Gulf in 1988, killing all 290 people on board (Extra!, 7/88), the Times editorial (7/5/88) insisted that "while horrifying, it was nonetheless an accident. On present evidence, it's hard to see what the Navy could have done to avoid it."
Far from denouncing Will Rogers, the captain of the USS Vincennes that brought down the passenger plane, as "irresponsible and stupid," let alone a "war criminal," the Times invited readers to "put yourself in Captain Rogers' shoes." He "had little choice," the paper assured. "It is hard to fault his decision to attack the suspect plane."
Bear in mind that this is not one of the ragtag separatists the Times points to in the Malaysia Airlines case–so unsophisticated that the Times suspects they must have had outside help to learn how to use a surface-to-air missile. Rogers was a high-ranking professional military officer who had at his command the finest surveillance and computer technology that the Cold War produced. Still, it's his "not knowing how to distinguish between a military and a civilian plane," not the separatists', that the Times finds easy to empathize with.
Has the Times just grown less forgiving over the years? Well, not really. A few years before the downing of Flight 655, the Times published a blistering editorial (9/2/83) about the Soviet Union shooting down Korean Airlines Flight 007. "There is no conceivable excuse for any nation shooting down a harmless airliner," it began. (...)
By George C. WilsonWashington Post Staff Writer Monday, July 4, 1988; Page A01
A U.S. warship fighting gunboats in the Persian Gulf yesterday mistook an Iranian civilian jetliner for an attacking Iranian F14 fighter plane and blew it out of the hazy sky with a heat-seeking missile, the Pentagon announced. Iran said 290 persons were aboard the European-made A300 Airbus and that all had perished.
"The U.S. government deeply regrets this incident," Adm. William J. Crowe Jr., chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a Pentagon news conference.
What do you want him to do? Make a strongly-worded speech?
No. I did not make the post as a criticism of Obama. It was about the reaction of the markets and how his statement was received.
The US really doesn't have a role in Ukraine the way I see it. And I do not wish to see the US get more involved in Ukraine. This is the EU's problem. The EU will do little because of its energy dependence on Russia.
No one has any leverage over Putin. That is the take away. The markets are relieved that little will come of this. Stating this was the sole intent of my post.
Obama spoke on Ukraine just a bit over 45 minutes ago.
Nothing remarkable, but the take away is that no actions or consequences lie ahead for Russia. The market response confirms this as nearly all indicators are reversing their big drops and may close in the green.
It seems that Putin will skate on this, and we're back to square one in Ukraine as if nothing has happened.
What do you want him to do? Make a strongly-worded speech?
Obama spoke on Ukraine just a bit over 45 minutes ago.
Nothing remarkable, but the take away is that no actions or consequences lie ahead for Russia. The market response confirms this as nearly all indicators are reversing their big drops and may close in the green.
It seems that Putin will skate on this, and we're back to square one in Ukraine as if nothing has happened.
dude ... its the nytimes ... 
