At the end of the article there's some material connected to the presidential election:
Donald J. Trump, in Colorado Springs, rushed to describe the explosion as a bomb well before the authorities had made any determinations about what had happened and while the situation was still in flux.
“I must tell you that just before I got off the plane, a bomb went off in New York and nobody knows exactly what’s going on,” he said. “But boy, we are living in a time — we better get very tough, folks.”What "conclusions" did Trump rush to? There was a big explosion and he called it "a bomb." He didn't say it was "terrorism" or what terrorist group he thought it was. He only said "bomb," and, we're told, the authorities hadn't yet "made any determinations" and things were "still in flux." Was that a "conclusion"? He said "nobody knows exactly what’s going on," so where's the conclusion?
The Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton, was informed of the episode after she gave a speech at the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation’s annual awards dinner, her campaign said. She seemed to scold Mr. Trump for his quick assessment. “I think it’s always wiser to wait until you have information before making conclusions,” Mrs. Clinton said.
It seems as though the NYT and Hillary Clinton are just trying to find something to smack him around about. Who's really stooping here — Trump or the NYT and Hillary Clinton? Trump's remark didn't attack Clinton. It just addressed the immediate event and may have said "bomb" before other things that could cause an explosion were ruled out. Hillary Clinton and the NYT were the ones who rushed to find something to use in a direct attack on their opponent.
Notice how closely Trump's response relates to the way the NYT readers reacted, up-voting the comment I put in the post heading. And here's the second-most-up-voted comment:
NYC must follow what Boston did to capture the criminals and take the pubic into confidence, instead of being more concerned about shaping public opinion before the election like they did with Benghazi.Meanwhile: "ISIS Supporters Rush To Celebrate NYC Explosion."
“The lions of the Caliphate roar in New York, we cause you pain inside your house, the carrier of the Cross,” wrote one Twitter user who went by the name “I am ISIS, come and block me.” The account was soon suspended. Another, called “The Lone Wolves,” tweeted with the Arabic hashtag #ExplosionManhattanNewYork “Oh God burn America, take revenge in the name of your oppressed slaves and believers’ blood.”AND: Look at this! Hillary Clinton's remark — the one quoted in the NYT — came along with HER saying it was a bomb!
"I've been briefed about the bombings in New York and New Jersey," she told reporters.
"Do you have any reaction to Donald Trump immediately ... referring to the explosion as a bomb?" a reporter asked.Shame on the NYT!
"Well I think it's important to know the facts before responding to an incident like this," Clinton said.
Posts
266 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 266 of 266The question was about Trump, AReasonableMan. If Hillary wished to change the point of reference, it was hers to do so.
It was you who suggested she had to answer a question about Trump by referencing Trump in order for her answer to be about Trump.
Yours is not philosophy. Yours is sophistry, if you pretend to believe it.
Where was Hellary last night that she expended all of her energy? She looked like they just woke her up.
Birkel said...
Yours is sophistry,
Again, I was only claiming to be applying Althouse's own standards. But you are ducking the question, must every statement of general principle be preceded by the statement "As a general principle..." in order to qualify as a statement of general principle?
ARM @ 2:24
Quit digging.
How can there be a bombing that has no bomb?
n.n said...
buwaya puti:
All theories begin in the philosophical domain, where they transition to another logical domain with improved knowledge and skill. However, their assembly is not two-dimensional, or even three, but a constellation with complexity proportional to the product of time and space offsets from an observation frame. That is, accuracy increases as complexity decreases, or accuracy decreases as complexity increases.
IOW As your data set approaches infinite your chances of getting any usable data approaches zero.
"Manhattan Blast That Injured 29 Does Not Appear to Be International Terrorism"
So, was International, but not Terrorism
or
Terrorsism, but not International?
AReasonableMan:
You are ducking the question. I am applying your reasoning.
Must it be understood that a person answering a specific question is meant to answer as a matter of general principle when the interviewee does not reference the change in referent?
I just looked at the video again. Yes, I stand by my earlier drunk or drugged statement.
Unless...
Is that really Hilary? It does not look like other recent pictures. Other pictures have her with a wrinkly forehead and neck. Other photos, lots over the past year, have her with "apple cheeks" her cheeks puffed out in odd looking balls.
the woman in the video does not.
John Henry
Birkel said...
Must it be understood that a person answering a specific question is meant to answer as a matter of general principle when the interviewee does not reference the change in referent?
Spoken language always encompasses some ambiguity but in the absence of a specific reference one can only assume generality. But you ducked my question again. It is a very simple question, and the answer, I would guess, seems obvious to everyone.
You might want to bookmark http://www.easyhyperlinks.com
9/18/16, 1:23 PM
Thank you, Walter, I have.
AReasonableMan:
So ambiguity means you get to interpret in the light most favorable to your preferred outcome, logic be damned? Just say that next time and be done.
Also, quit trying to make me answer your question. Your argument requires that I can say whatever I wish and that answer is one of generalities, never getting us closer to an answer to your specific question.
Your argument is self-refuting. I have demonstrated exactly that. Now you must away.
Birkel said...
Now you must away.
Not until you answer the question. In doing so much of your obfuscation will fall away and thus the truth will be revealed.
The question is not ambiguous in the slightest part. A yes or no answer would be perfectly satisfactory.
Not until you answer my questions:
If one offers a general answer to a specific question, whose responsibility is it to make that change in referent clear? And in not doing so, is it reasonable to assume the answer refers to the question asked?
I'd rather see the original link not hidden in html. Just left click on the link until it is fully selcted, then right click and choose "Go to http (link)" It's just as easy as the hidden link, but safer--you know where you are going.
Trump is Hitler so the left's smears are justified.
If you spend some time at You Tube, you can see that the DNC is faking Hillary's appearances now using greenscreen techniques and a double. People make a quite convincing case. See her recent Greensboro, NC appearance.
AReasonableMan:
Let me answer as Hillary Clinton might by writing "It depends on what the definition of 'is' that preceded the phrase 'is a statement of general principle' when one refers to a statement of 'general' 'principle' depending on the definition you meant to employ, but which I have a highly unusual and personally satisfying definition of, both as to the the word general and as to the word principle, such that an answer to your question as either a yes or a no would fail to establish an understanding of the English language sufficient to responsibly state a specific answer to your question of general applicability."
People who want to criticize Trump for rushing to be first to talk perhaps don't realize Hillary and Obama were at a party all night, and that's why they didn't make an earlier comment.
I finally watched her interview on the plane and she made Jeb look like the Energizer Bunny.
I am very disappointed Birkel. In resorting, finally, to a Clintonian response you have ceded much of the great moral authority that you had built up over the years. I only foresee bad things ahead for you, your declining years futilely expended poring over the first drafts of history trying to find 'gotcha' moments that only you find of any importance.
Not at all, AReasonableMan.
Answer my questions. Or surrender.
Not until you answer my questions:
If one offers a general answer to a specific question, whose responsibility is it to make that change in referent clear? And in not doing so, is it reasonable to assume the answer refers to the question asked?
AReasonableMan said...
"Spoken language always encompasses some ambiguity but in the absence of a specific reference one can only assume generality."
All language is code and dog whistles, is what I'm getting from you, in the same way that Hillary is responsible for what I hear her saying.
Birkel said...
Or surrender.
I am not sure that surrender to someone of such debased moral authority is truly possible. Doesn't the word in itself imply submission to someone of greater authority, free of the Clintonian mark of shame? Burn the witch. Burn the witch.
The Islamic Terrorists among us are making Hillary and gang look naive and stupid. So the Media guys and gals desperately announce over and over that we are not seeing the bombs and the AllahAkbar attacks on Americans for being infidels in our own country. But we need a President with solemn coverup skills. Trump just blows it all up against the innocent Muslim Race.
Blogger Darrell said...
I'd rather see the original link not hidden in html..It's just as easy as the hidden link.
--
Not if on a phone.
AReasonableMan said...
"Spoken language always encompasses some ambiguity but in the absence of a specific reference one can only assume generality."
Therefore the statement "I will kill you." is not a statement that the speaker wishes to kill a specific person, as we must assume generality. Further, a specific reference like "I will kill John Smith." cannot be taken to be a threat against a specific John Smith, but rather only a general declaration that all John Smiths might be targets of murder by the speaker.
Obviously.
If you spend some time at You Tube, you can see that the DNC is faking Hillary's appearances now using greenscreen techniques and a double. People make a quite convincing case. See her recent Greensboro, NC appearance.
I watched one conspiracy video of that appearance and the issue is that smart phone cameras have very wide angle lenses. The only flag you could possibly see on those phone screens is the large American flag hanging sideways, and I did see that on several of the screens. You can also see the concrete block wall that the smaller flags are in front of, but the flags themselves are too small to resolve.
So I say the claim that there is a green screen at the Greensboro NC Hillary rally is false.
If one offers a general answer to a specific question, whose responsibility is it to make that change in referent clear? And in not doing so, is it reasonable to assume the answer refers to the question asked?
We all know that she would have said "generalisticly"
So I say the claim that there is a green screen at the Greensboro NC Hillary rally is false.
That's what you say. But there is a lot more than the view through those cellphones (which should still capture what is in front of it, no matter how wide the field of view.) This is very long, but it is also comprehensive.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzFglNq0Thc
tim in vermont:
I thought the Hillary-approved spelling was generalistically. thank you for correctifying my misunderstandingment.
It wasn't a Nuclear Bomb.
Yet.
That would clarify the debate.
So it turns out that one of @Laslo's characters was spotted by a celebrity:
'You do not get to harass me': Sophia Bush slams 'creepy dude' in open letter after awkward flight
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-3795285/Sophia-Bush-slams-random-dude-plane-passionate-open-letter-following-miserable-flight.html#ixzz4Ke6L2cJh
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
On reflection, I realize that the statement 'Burn the witch, burn the witch' is open to misinterpretation, by someone with too much time on their hands. I would like to rephrase it thusly, "In reference to M. Birkel, Burn the witch, Burn the witch."
I would also like to add an additional qualifier: "In reference to M. Birkel, Burn the witch, Burn the witch (metaphorically speaking)." I feel that this is necessary in order to avoid any ambiguity for the more literal minded (not you April). We are all good people here.
Just left click on the link until it is fully selcted, then right click and choose "Go to http (link)"
Fine with a mouse, a pain with a touchpad. You can hoover over a link and see what it is before opening = ease of use + transparency.
Or use a desktop and mouse--like the really cool people.
rhhardin wrote: Nobody makes crock pot bombs.
You should try my chili. Some say it's da bomb. Others say it just bombs.
I think Hillary (or the double) is now trying to copy Obama in order to get that annoying screeching haranguing note out of her voice. That new monotone, that "uh", and that triangular motion of the head as it moves between teleprompters, that's Obama. It's better when Obama does it. Debate prep. Not working. When the screech is missing everyone thinks 'Hillary is heavily drugged'. And message - she's (or her triple) is trying to show that she is responsible. But, as everyone has pointed out, when you say: 'I heard about the bombing and I think Donald Trump shouldn't have called the bombing a bombing until The Mayor Of New York issued a statement on the bombing calling the bombing a bombing' you don't come across as responsible, you come across as heavily drugged.
I can't see her winning the debates. She will mumble away (or screech) about policy ('and I plan to alter line 17, page 94 and my opponent has no comment on page 94 and its significance') and Trump will ask about consequences of policies: 'If you like your doctor, can you keep your doctor?' 'Are big-city blacks richer now than they were in 2008? Are their kids trapped in failing schools? Why should they vote for the Democrats, like you, who promise them more of the same?' 'Prosperity is just around the corner behind us? Is that the New Normal?' And tell deplorable jokes.
If one offers a general answer to a specific question, whose responsibility is it to make that change in referent clear? And in not doing so, is it reasonable to assume the answer refers to the question asked?
Way to go Althouse! Defending jumping to conclusions while denying that conclusions are jumped to when everyone who's actually listened to Trump knows that his whole argument for becoming president is the conclusion that we've not been tough enough on terrorism - a conclusion that is obviously mimicked when he says "we better get very tough, folks."
I think Trump was right. He could gun someone down in broad daylight on 5th Avenue and Ms. Althouse would be there the very next day, screaming that we can't ever know what really happened.
As opposed to Hillary, who set up a secret server and jeopardized American security while taking donations for a charity that kept almost all the money, but has "Rhythm and Balls'" support no matter what
In reference to the burning of witches, I suggest that this should be arranged with an eye to due process, as it can too easily descend into chaos, as in the witch manias of 16th-17th century Germany.
The Spanish Inquisition had a rigorous system with checks and balances and institutional oversight, and in the end burned very few witches, though in those cases it was far more certain that it got its witch rather than someone's inconvenient granny.
"...and Ms. Althouse would be there the very next day, screaming that we can't ever know what really happened."
She's very science-y, so she'd know it's some sort of meta-universe, entanglement phenomena. If not that, it's the lib lame stream media telling lies.
Anywho, she's really been taken by Scott Adam's observations about all the folks who have and promote beliefs that are not fact or reality based. Of course, that doesn't include her, after all she's anti-HRC because of HRC's face and voice.
As opposed to PBandJ who actually did that with Hillary Clinton's secret servers, demanding metaphysical proof of intention.
"And it's just plain sickening how everything turns into a basis for taking a shot at Trump.
Imagine if Trump had immediately attacked Clinton over the explosion. He'd be savaged for that."
And frankly laughable. She's crying wolf and people are thinking wrong wolf. Nor did her appearance before the cameras dispel growing doubts about both her health and her honesty.
The Left is on a baby hunt, but not everyone is enthusiastically carrying a scalpel. Positive progress.
PBandJ_LeDouanier wrote: ...after all she's anti-HRC because of HRC's face and voice.
PBandJ immolates the last shreds of respect owed him.
Without descending to paranoia about doubles or green screens, the changes in Hillary's appearances have been marked by others, including Scott Adams:
"What I see in Clinton’s health is an unusual level of variability. Sometimes her eyes bug out, sometimes they are tired and baggy. Sometimes she looks puffy, sometimes not. It would be easy to assume fatigue is the important variable. And that is clearly a big factor. But notice that the other candidates have little variability in their physicality. Trump always looks like Trump. Cruz always looks like Cruz, and so on. Sometimes we think we can detect fatigue in their answers, but visually the other candidates appear about the same every day.
"Clinton, on the other hand, looks like an entirely different person every few days. That suggests some greater variability in her health. And that’s probably a tell for medications that are waxing and waning but rarely at the ideal levels. Or perhaps the underlying conditions have normal variability. Or both."
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/150284922631/checking-my-predictions-about-clintons-health
As opposed to Hillary,...
Did I mention Hillary? Did Althouse mention Hillary?
Or did you just need a new squeeze toy to "play with" and attack as soon as your master, Trump, is mentioned?
Some people just need squirrels to chase. It's like the dogs that never shut up when the doorbell is rung. Birkel is a canine hominoid.
"PBandJ_LeDouanier wrote: ...after all she's anti-HRC because of HRC's face and voice.
PBandJ immolates the last shreds of respect owed him."
I'm guessing that you haven't seen the section of the bloggingheads thing w/ Bob Wright where she and he discuss the so called issue of HRC lying.
Check it out, then check back.
If you can spare eight minutes and thirty one seconds:
http://bloggingheads.tv/videos/43680?in=31:34&out=40:05
"Rhythm and Balls:"
The main post mention Clinton. Now what?
Agreed, PBandJ, you had no respect owed.
So you weren't responding to me then, but to Althouse. But you just made it look like you were responding to me. Sounds just incoherent enough for someone like you.
You made things up about Trump, instead of responding to the reality of Clinton. And Clinton was mentioned in the main post.
You are absurd.
The easiest way to spot a Hillary double is to look at the lack of Secret Service protection. They can't get involved in the bullshit. At the NC greenscreen fake, they had big guys in suits pretending, but none from Hillary's regular protection detail. The SS never substitutes the entire team--unless they were all taken out of action somehow.
It should be real journalists and experts putting out these stories (including on her health issues) but until the dam breaks, citizens must do the work. A single amateur captured Hillary at 9/11 in NYC. Pro photogs were waived off.
Oh. So I "made up" that Trump is fixated with terrorism, how ever-present a threat it is, and how it keeps happening because anyone currently in government is not doing enough about it?
Awesome! You just dismantled nearly the guy's entire campaign.
Seriously, I know you're open-minded enough on Trump to let your brains (whatever there is of them) fall out of your head. But I didn't know you wanted to second-guess his commitment to making stronger anti-terrorism efforts the centerpiece of his run. Trump is a cut-and-run hippie peacenik! Who knew?
Birkel's always a step ahead of his Master. Like any bitch in heat.
You are very angry. Get help.
I sense the goalpost changing impulse in you is strong.
No. I already won any debate. But you will forge on, angrily, and I will feel sad for you.
Go ahead and vent.
I have a hard time believing that the Crooked Hillary campaign would have the balls to try to run a body double of her in public. If they are truly caught red handed, that is the election, right there, and they have to know that. Much better, I think, to just rest up and let her husband fill in for her for awhile.
Awwwww. Let's have a pity party for the Goalpost Changer. One, two, three: Awwwwwww.
HT said... Look, I'm concerned, I'm just not "frightened" by her. But Trump, yes, a little bit.
9/18/16, 10:39 AM
Really, a progressive frightened by the republican candidate? This IS unprecedented! Thank god you told me- Now I'm with her! After all, I wouldn't want to support a candidate that made progressives frightened. Progressive democrats never use fear-mongering in a campaign, so when someone says that the republican is "scary", then take heed, Americans, that person is well and truly dangerous and frightening. Like Goldwater and his nukes in '64, or Nixon and his insatiable nationalism and thirst for war in '68 and '72, or Reagan who made young democrat party kinder cry when he won because they knew he would start a nuclear war. How about W Bush, such a scary, Hitlery megalomaniac that we just had to vote for Aljazeera Gore and James Taylor Kerry. In 08 McCain was an old senile warmonger who was scary, and in '12 Mitt Romney was the republican scaring all the little progressives with his scary magic underwear, and giving women cancer when he wasn't putting them in binders. Good Gawd, from what ring of Hell do republicans draw forth their evil candidates? Is it any wonder that Donald Trump is so scary? Why for nearly forty years he's been in the public eye carrying on like the second coming of Hitler and NOW HE WON'T RELEASE HIS TAXES!
I'm with her!
Certainly one can check a link without following it on a smartphone — or at least iPhone (I suppose Android can do it too, but I don't know how). On an iPhone, however, using the Safari browser, simply (lightly) press the link and hold it down for a couple of seconds. A menu will appear showing a) the link displayed, b) the "hover-over" text, and c) a menu of options, such as "Open in New Tab" or "Cancel." Simply Cancel after reading where the link goes if you don't want to follow it.
On another blog the author writes “No one was killed but dozens were seriously injured, and although one suspect has been arrested in both the New Jersey and New York incidents there’s not yet any link to the Minneapolis attacks and no definitive evidence that any of it is tied to international groups, but it’s all the scarier to contemplate that these sorts of things are just popping up spontaneously.”
Strange. When I first heard about a man slashing multiple shoppers in a Minneapolis mall and a bomb going off in New York and more bombs found in New Jersey my first thought was that the thing that these events had in common was that they were probably terrorist attacks by Muslims rather than disaffected Anglicans. The odds were good that one or both would be named Mohammad. But I was wrong; neither of the perps was named Mohammad. As for the rest I was right. Does that make me a racist? Or does that mean I can connect the dots that tell me that Muslims in our midst have been attacking Americans using knives, axes, guns and bombs and that when the news of a new attack of mass violence hits the airwaves we immediately understand that there’s a pattern here.
Garden variety Americans are pretty good at murder and mayhem. The black residents of Chicago have been killing each other in record numbers this year. Ditto for residents of Detroit, Philadelphia, Baltimore, St. Louis, Los Angeles and other urban areas that have been run by Democrats for decades. Glenn Reynolds has been asking why Democrat run cities are such cesspools of crime and corruption. But I digress.
People are shot or stabbed every day for any number of reasons: robbery, jealousy, a drug deal gone bad, gang violence. But when we hear about these events our antenna don’t go up.
The attacks by the followers of the Religion of Peace – those peaceful Muslims we hear so much about; the ones who the press and the politicians tell as the real victims of these attacks – stand out; they have a similarity. They are similar in this respect: they are random; the victims are unknown to the attacker. They have none of the motives that the garden variety criminals have. They are attacks of ideology. They can only be understood as the work of fanatics and their purpose is nothing but terror and death.
If you don’t find any link between the terror attacks in New York, New Jersey and Minneapolis you have not been paying attention, or you are blinded by your ideology. You don’t want to understand because understanding means that you have to deal with the fact that there are a few million people in this country who, for religious reason, can go on a killing spree and you don’t want to have to think about that. You don’t want to have to think of ways that will prevent the next attack because it will upset your preconceptions. You can take comfort that the odds of your being killed in the next attack are low. And – to paraphrase Hillary - what difference at this point are a few more or less of your neighbors in the grand scheme of things. So you tell yourself that doing something effective means – in the words of Barack Obama and his friend Paul Ryan - “that’s not who we are.” So you turn your head and pretend not to see the links.
Post a Comment