Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Showing Original Post only (View all)

jazzimov

(1,456 posts)
Fri Jun 21, 2013, 10:35 PM Jun 2013

Here's a Hint - when someone .... [View all]

posts something with their "hair on fire", even if they post a link to a BLOG of someone else who also seems to have their "hair on fire", it's probably wrong. Or at least misrepresented.

There is something that DUers should understand, and that I think they do but only when it is convenient - Journalists can, and will, lie.

In this case, we have been blessed in the fact that the actual documents themselves are available.

However, most people simply don't want to read the original documents. They would rather have someone else "tell" them what it contains, even if it is WRONG and directly contradicts what was said in the original document.

A perfect example is the FISA order that the Guardian decried as "being only one paragraph!". Well, yes it was, but that single paragraph had several references to existing laws. In essence, the FISA order said that "all orders will follow existing law". But the Guardian article tried to portray the brevity as some kind of "proof" that the FISA court doesn't follow established law. When in fact the order commands that the FISA Court MUST follow those laws that have been established previously - without being redundant.

I know that many people here will disagree with my interpretations, but the Guardian interpretations are demonstrably wrong simply by reading the documents that they, themselves, released.

The thing that amazes me is that a News Article could be so "off-base" and then release documents that directly contradict them as "proof" of their stance. The leaked documents directly contradict their allegations, and yet the allegations remain. Karl Rove himslelf couldn't have engineered such a coup.

Before you jump to conclusions, please read the FISA order.

Ya know, I started to link to the original order, but I'm tired of doing that. Google is your friend.

And if you want to argue, refer back to the actual order. I don't care what any site says, because they are full of shit. Refer back to the actual order.

29 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
I think your hair is on fire RobertEarl Jun 2013 #1
Then he's probably wrong. dawg Jun 2013 #3
It's so easy to manipulate some people treestar Jun 2013 #2
that is the character flaw that is harvested so these stories Whisp Jun 2013 #9
"Journalists can, and will, lie." And most people who spew are not journalists, just liars. Buzz Clik Jun 2013 #4
and the term journalist, really is an antiquidated term that hasn't existed in 20 years graham4anything Jun 2013 #26
I love how popular that phrase has become recently, 'hair on fire' is suddenly the fave phrase Bluenorthwest Jun 2013 #5
"Concern troll," "pearl clutching" and "fainting couch" became overworn. Nuclear Unicorn Jun 2013 #18
there are other, emerging one: "third way" comes to mind. Buzz Clik Jun 2013 #28
four years and counting. But, it has a great smiley: Buzz Clik Jun 2013 #27
Here's another hint --When someone uses the phrase "hair on fire"... Bonobo Jun 2013 #6
Well, then I apologize RobertEarl Jun 2013 #8
SOOOOO Bonobo, logically extrapolating from what you're saying..... socialist_n_TN Jun 2013 #11
Ummm, no. That's not logical. Bonobo Jun 2013 #12
I don't know. Applying the same "logic" that has been applied.... socialist_n_TN Jun 2013 #17
If you don't like that phrase, there are many others treestar Jun 2013 #16
None are as accurate as "conditioned to mind-numbing gullibility". nt Bonobo Jun 2013 #20
That would describe reacting to every story as soon as it breaks treestar Jun 2013 #22
Whatever. Bonobo Jun 2013 #24
I don't give a crap about the existing laws. The laws that justify the spying need to be changed. liberal_at_heart Jun 2013 #7
You don't? treestar Jun 2013 #23
"Google is your friend"? 1-Old-Man Jun 2013 #10
Yup, this is why this reporter nadinbrzezinski Jun 2013 #13
It sounds like you believe that anyone who has concerns hasn't read the documents nt Jarla Jun 2013 #14
Here are the links Jarla Jun 2013 #15
hint: whether or not someone's hair is in flames, is wholly subjective. cali Jun 2013 #19
Your pants are on fire. The Link Jun 2013 #21
After seeing lots of pipi_k Jun 2013 #25
Your last sentence expressed my sentiments, exactly. n/t UtahLib Jun 2013 #29
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Here's a Hint - when some...