The numbers of articles don't mean anything--it's unlikely the 1995-era editions are fully digitized. Yes, the Times Square bombing got more coverage than I anticipated it would--but I still maintain it would've gotten even more if it'd been a right-wing nut. The NYT was a bad example on my part since it took place in their backyard; I'd be especially interested to see CNN coverage of the events compared. Either way, there was definitely a tangible sense of disappointment on the media's part when it turned out that the attempted attack was the work of a radical Islamist (especially after the early reports that someone had seen a white guy walking away from the truck).
Are you not aware that everyone here knows that you just make this crap up as you go and move the goalposts whenever it suits your needs? At least Steamer doesn't pretend to be what he's not...
Yes, you could see "the media" frown when they caught him and he was brown...I saw it too...you had to look close, but it was there..."the media" is tricky that way...good catch
I didn't just see it......I heard it. There was a collective "Awwww shucks!" from the media when the terrorist wasn't white. I think I even heard one or two "Drats!" and a "Dagnabbit!"
Show me one example in the mainstream media. Just one. I give you evidence, you say it "doesn't mean anything", then you claim there was a "tangible" sense of disappointment, which means it wasn't just perception, it was concrete. So show us. Show me an example of media "disappointment" that the perp was Islamic.
I'm sorry for getting all on-topic on you folks but Glenn Greenwald has posted the unedited video of this event. Looks like it wasn't a setup and the congressman was behaving in a criminal and asshattish manner. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZKie0Z4kaw&feature=player_embedded"]YouTube- Rep. Etheridge Attacks Student @ Pelosi Fundraiser 1[/ame] Although there is a point in the video where it goes dark and I guess it's remotely possible that it's edited, I tend to doubt it. Etheridge went from walking down the street to wacking the camera out of the guy's hand in about 15 seconds.
Yikes. I hope that it's a situation where this was the 8th encounter in 2 days with those guys. Otherwise....
Methinks he had one too many cocktails at lunch and didn't wanna get back to the capitol to vote on re-naming another post office.
This is the vibe I got from the whole thing, old dude taking some whippersnapper by the ear and threatening to go talk to his parents. And while he was being an asshole, isn't the word "assault" a little much? But I'm biased, I'd be tempted to whack any asshole who sticks a camera in my face and asks me some ridiculous leading question. One reason of many I'm glad I'm not a "public figure."
He didn't just wack at the camera, though. He grabbed the guy's wrist and held on, despite the guy asking him to let go. And he grabbed him and pulled him over next to him - I guess so he'd get his face on camera or something. I don't think "assault" is too strong a word in this case, assuming that there's not something missing from the video which I'm guessing there isn't since there was no mention of it in his "apology."
Sorry, but “drunk Democratic Representative” seems overly repetitive. Was anyone surprised when Patches Kennedy drove his car into the Washington Memorial?
The vibe I got is he feels as an entitled feeling dude who thinks he's above it all and fck you if you question him. You know what? Liberal or Conservative, douchebags like this have been blinded by power and money that comes from who knows where. In this regard I agree with the tea baggers, send them back to greeting at Walmart.
I believe the word you're looking for is: Battery Old men will just snap at you for no reason, it happens all the time. They get cranky Put him down for a nap or give him a time-out, he'll be fine.
I guess because I'd rather have people who enjoy a few drinks with some frequency running the government than austere mormons.
http://www.sodahead.com/united-stat...ed-times-square-bomber-is-muslim/blog-313609/ And it's not the media, but several posters on here openly expressed similar sentiments. This is a pretty good read on the media reaction to the Times Square attempted attack as well as the Ft. Hood shooting.
He actually seemed fine until he was asked the "question." As if "Do you fully support the Obama agenda?" is anything but a windup designed to either tick him off and make him do something rash (which he did) or give them some good copy to use later in whatever little game they've cooked up. I agree with you that politicians usually end up entitled dicks, but being asked a substantive question by a journalist is very different than being goaded by some punk-ass with a camera. And I'd feel the same way if this had been somebody asking a Republican congressman "Do you fully support the Bush Agenda?" It's a wind-up, and that's fine, but don't be surprised if the person you're pulling it on actually gets wound up. Here's a more extreme example: [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUI36tPKDg4&feature=related"]Don't ******** with old soldiers[/ame] All that said, Congressman Jimbob screwed up bigtime, no doubt about that. But I still got a kick out of seeing camera boy poop his pants as a man twice his age was tempted to kick the crap out of him.
1. Probably 3 times his age. Etheridge is no spring chicken. 2. He's also really tall, 6'5" or so. Read better you ********wit.
You're right, just looked him up, he's 68. And also a former soldier and athlete, so yes, I think he had a moment of regression to the days where he could just deal immediately with some little twerp giving him a hard time.
Provide quotes and links or we'll know you're full of shit. When you're searching for these links, make sure that you quote "several" posters.