• Welcome to the Chronicle Forums.
    Please complete your profile. The forums and the rest of www.chronofhorse.com has single sign-in, so your log in information for one will automatically work for the other. Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here are the views of the individual and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of The Chronicle of the Horse.

Announcement

Collapse

Forum rules and no-advertising policy

As a participant on this forum, it is your responsibility to know and follow our rules. Please read this message in its entirety.

Board Rules

1. You’re responsible for what you say.
As outlined in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, The Chronicle of the Horse and its affiliates, as well Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., the developers of vBulletin, are not legally responsible for statements made in the forums.

This is a public forum viewed by a wide spectrum of people, so please be mindful of what you say and who might be reading it—details of personal disputes are likely better handled privately. While posters are legally responsible for their statements, the moderators may in their discretion remove or edit posts that violate these rules. Users have the ability to modify or delete their own messages after posting, but administrators generally will not delete posts, threads or accounts upon request.

Outright inflammatory, vulgar, harassing, malicious or otherwise inappropriate statements and criminal charges unsubstantiated by a reputable news source or legal documentation will not be tolerated and will be dealt with at the discretion of the moderators.

Credible threats of suicide will be reported to the police along with identifying user information at our disposal, in addition to referring the user to suicide helpline resources such as 1-800-SUICIDE or 1-800-273-TALK.

2. Conversations in horse-related forums should be horse-related.
The forums are a wonderful source of information and support for members of the horse community. While it’s understandably tempting to share information or search for input on other topics upon which members might have a similar level of knowledge, members must maintain the focus on horses.

3. Keep conversations productive, on topic and civil.
Discussion and disagreement are inevitable and encouraged; personal insults, diatribes and sniping comments are unproductive and unacceptable. Whether a subject is light-hearted or serious, keep posts focused on the current topic and of general interest to other participants of that thread. Utilize the private message feature or personal email where appropriate to address side topics or personal issues not related to the topic at large.

4. No advertising in the discussion forums.
Posts in the discussion forums directly or indirectly advertising horses, jobs, items or services for sale or wanted will be removed at the discretion of the moderators. Use of the private messaging feature or email addresses obtained through users’ profiles for unsolicited advertising is not permitted.

Company representatives may participate in discussions and answer questions about their products or services, or suggest their products on recent threads if they fulfill the criteria of a query. False "testimonials" provided by company affiliates posing as general consumers are not appropriate, and self-promotion of sales, ad campaigns, etc. through the discussion forums is not allowed.

Paid advertising is available on our classifieds site and through the purchase of banner ads. The tightly monitored Giveaways forum permits free listings of genuinely free horses and items available or wanted (on a limited basis). Items offered for trade are not allowed.

Advertising Policy Specifics
When in doubt of whether something you want to post constitutes advertising, please contact a moderator privately in advance for further clarification. Refer to the following points for general guidelines:

Horses – Only general discussion about the buying, leasing, selling and pricing of horses is permitted. If the post contains, or links to, the type of specific information typically found in a sales or wanted ad, and it’s related to a horse for sale, regardless of who’s selling it, it doesn’t belong in the discussion forums.

Stallions – Board members may ask for suggestions on breeding stallion recommendations. Stallion owners may reply to such queries by suggesting their own stallions, only if their horse fits the specific criteria of the original poster. Excessive promotion of a stallion by its owner or related parties is not permitted and will be addressed at the discretion of the moderators.

Services – Members may use the forums to ask for general recommendations of trainers, barns, shippers, farriers, etc., and other members may answer those requests by suggesting themselves or their company, if their services fulfill the specific criteria of the original post. Members may not solicit other members for business if it is not in response to a direct, genuine query.

Products – While members may ask for general opinions and suggestions on equipment, trailers, trucks, etc., they may not list the specific attributes for which they are in the market, as such posts serve as wanted ads.

Event Announcements – Members may post one notification of an upcoming event that may be of interest to fellow members, if the original poster does not benefit financially from the event. Such threads may not be “bumped” excessively. Premium members may post their own notices in the Event Announcements forum.

Charities/Rescues – Announcements for charitable or fundraising events can only be made for 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations. Special exceptions may be made, at the moderators’ discretion and direction, for board-related events or fundraising activities in extraordinary circumstances.

Occasional posts regarding horses available for adoption through IRS-registered horse rescue or placement programs are permitted in the appropriate forums, but these threads may be limited at the discretion of the moderators. Individuals may not advertise or make announcements for horses in need of rescue, placement or adoption unless the horse is available through a recognized rescue or placement agency or government-run entity or the thread fits the criteria for and is located in the Giveaways forum.

5. Do not post copyrighted photographs unless you have purchased that photo and have permission to do so.

6. Respect other members.
As members are often passionate about their beliefs and intentions can easily be misinterpreted in this type of environment, try to explore or resolve the inevitable disagreements that arise in the course of threads calmly and rationally.

If you see a post that you feel violates the rules of the board, please click the “alert” button (exclamation point inside of a triangle) in the bottom left corner of the post, which will alert ONLY the moderators to the post in question. They will then take whatever action, or no action, as deemed appropriate for the situation at their discretion. Do not air grievances regarding other posters or the moderators in the discussion forums.

Please be advised that adding another user to your “Ignore” list via your User Control Panel can be a useful tactic, which blocks posts and private messages by members whose commentary you’d rather avoid reading.

7. We have the right to reproduce statements made in the forums.
The Chronicle of the Horse may copy, quote, link to or otherwise reproduce posts, or portions of posts, in print or online for advertising or editorial purposes, if attributed to their original authors, and by posting in this forum, you hereby grant to The Chronicle of the Horse a perpetual, non-exclusive license under copyright and other rights, to do so.

8. We reserve the right to enforce and amend the rules.
The moderators may delete, edit, move or close any post or thread at any time, or refrain from doing any of the foregoing, in their discretion, and may suspend or revoke a user’s membership privileges at any time to maintain adherence to the rules and the general spirit of the forum. These rules may be amended at any time to address the current needs of the board.

Please see our full Terms of Service and Privacy Policy for more information.

Thanks for being a part of the COTH forums!

(Revised 2/8/18)
See more
See less

FEMA Director Mike Brown was fired by the IAHA??? - Katrina TIMELINE on p.17

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Huntertwo, thank you for changing your sig line from that offensive bullhorn moment to one simply laughable. Your quotee is a worthy successor and his gems appear as frequently above the sig line.

    __________________________________________
    September 14, 2005: "I can hear you. The rest of the world hears you. And the
    hurricane that knocked these levees down will hear all of us soon. ~ Lookout
    Visit my barefoot blog:
    http://barefoothoofcare.wordpress.com/
    "I don't mean to brag, I don't mean to boast, but I'm intercontinental when I eat French toast" ~ Beastie Boys

    Comment


    • <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Erin:
      Yup, cuz you didn't provide any words. Come up with some actual evidence that the entire mainstream media is "left" -- OTHER than "because Bill and Rush say so" -- and then we'll talk. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
      Come up with some actual evidence that the mainstream media is not leftist -- OTHER than "because Michael Moore and Susan Sarandon said so". I won't be holding my breath...

      Comment


      • Do we think Mike Brownie Brown has had his stiff margarita yet?

        _________________________________________
        September 14, 2005: "I can hear you. The rest of the world hears you. And the
        hurricane that knocked these levees down will hear all of us soon. ~ Lookout

        September 15, 2005: "The Bullet Has Not Been Dodged" ~ George W. Bush
        Visit my barefoot blog:
        http://barefoothoofcare.wordpress.com/
        "I don't mean to brag, I don't mean to boast, but I'm intercontinental when I eat French toast" ~ Beastie Boys

        Comment


        • Bet Brown's had a lot of them since he got caught with his pants around his ankles which was why he couldn't run fast enough for cover. Absolutely no reason to believe a horse person about logic, ethics or rational thinking never mind put them in charge!

          Oh! Erin you're not seriously questioning that the Press is a Liberal Press? These are the same guys who always forgive the Dems for any trangressions. They'd never forgive a Republican for any errors. It's all but lynch the guy "he can't pronounce english cause he's from Texas". If he's smart he's too smart and slimy if he's dumb he's too dumb and an idiot. Tell me it was my imagination with the ones caught "not checking" their information with enough sources when their news stories turned out to be erroneous.

          Thank God! you have the right that we all have to criticize those in power, whoever they are and whatever the source of their power. Wherever, they reign supreme; that my friend is what freedom means.

          Yep! I'm a Republican and I have been since Franklin Roosevelt. I believe in Small Business, I believe in individuals and I believe I have the right to disagree even with the self declared pundits of knowledge.

          I don't believe in religion mixed with politics but I think there is a generic GOD we can respect and the Universal Wisdom of this world as we know it. I don't care what name anyone calls him and I sympathize with those who don't believe he's here.

          But, please do not try to humiliate those who do not accept the same standards of authority that you respect. That is a travesty of your authority and position. I will defend your right to believe what you like and to express it but not when you resort to tactics that involve humiliation and degradation of anyone.

          I thought Ronald Reagan was a great President; I think George H. was a superior President and a little too much of a gentleman. I don't think GW is stupid, illiterate or incompetent. He is part of your generation like it or not he won the election. In my day we helped a President to be better than he thought he could be because he was "Mr. President" as long as he was in office.

          Whether you or the other liberals like it or not GW is President in his second term so there is no reason for him to be less than he can be. He trusts his friends and some let him down and make bad suggestions. We Republicans who helped elect him have nothing to be ashamed of, we never said he or any other Republican was perfect but we believe what we believe and while we can debate it no one has the right to insult or demean anyone.

          History will make the final judgments 50/100 years from now. It just means that independent free thinking people do not agree that anyone is better than no one.

          I think horses are getting a bad rap based on erroneous information. I think the statistics being used are flawed and that after 300 years farmers have not suddenly turned into villains trashing the balance of nature. I think the bleeding heart liberals are short sighted and not looking down the road at how close we could come to famine if all the farms go away and stop producing food.

          I think horses are a part of our life and culture and we need them more than the mud turtle and if the dirty Canada Geese can be a protected species; Why can't the horse?
          http://www.usAHSA.org and http://www.noreinstatement.org

          Comment


          • trailblazer, generally the burden of proof is on the person making the accusation. If you think any of the news articles I posted were biased, go right ahead and point that bias out.

            They call it "the mainstream media" for a reason, you know.

            Comment


            • Snowbird, you've just had that third glass of port, haven't you? Your posts aren't making sense again... seems to happen pretty frequently around this time of the evening.

              Comment


              • Who calls it "mainstream"? Who are you quoting based on what authority that the Press is ever "mainstream" unless the Democrats are in power. Don't be mad at us because the Democrats didn't have a platform or a candidate that could win the independent votes.

                Yes! the Democrats can win the inner city but fortunately the founding fathers realized that there had to be a balance between the cities and intense population and the farmers spread out over acreage.

                I have 75 acres if it was built in high rise, low cost apartments how many votes would I have? The fact is the burden of proof is just as great on the defender as on the accused if not greater. If you want to convince us then argue your points don't just quote authority. We all know authority can be wrong. Isn't that one of your points; in this authority is wrong.
                http://www.usAHSA.org and http://www.noreinstatement.org

                Comment


                • Must be a four-glass night!

                  Comment


                  • <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Erin:
                    Snowbird, you've just had that third glass of port, haven't you? Your posts aren't making sense again... seems to happen pretty frequently around this time of the evening. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

                    You spoke too soon!
                    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:<~
                    \"See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda.\"—George W. Bush

                    Comment


                    • There you go Erin again when you don't have an answer.

                      No actually, I've not had any wine I didn't get my delivery of supplies today. Maybe that's why I'm so testy about your intended insults which only expose you for what you are. Perhaps, you're one of those people who turns into a nasty drunk and you're the one who isn't making sense.

                      Is that what happens when you get cranky and short tempered? Have you had too much to drink or is it because you haven't had anything to drink and you're bad humored? It's hard to tell in your case.
                      http://www.usAHSA.org and http://www.noreinstatement.org

                      Comment


                      • Erin, you control me so well I now post in unison with you.
                        ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:<~
                        \"See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda.\"—George W. Bush

                        Comment


                        • Snowbird I think you need to join me on Trent Lott's porch. There is plenty to drink and you obviously need one.
                          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:<~
                          \"See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda.\"—George W. Bush

                          Comment


                          • I wouldn't mind. When I was in Washington last I heard Trent Lott sing and he has a magnificent voice. Deep bass which surprised me. They have a chorus of "Singing Senators" actually very good. So I'd be pleased to have a Mint Julip on his porch and rock away in my rocking chair.

                            Wait a minute this is weird within 5 minutes I'm accused of being irrational because I'm a drunk and also being offered a drink because I'm too sober. It must be my Gemini personality. Half of me is drunk and senseless and the other half is rude becuse it's sober. Wow! I'll have to figure out which I prefer.
                            http://www.usAHSA.org and http://www.noreinstatement.org

                            Comment


                            • Ok, I'll chime in here. I have my B.S. in Communications. And what BS was it LOL! Ok, all kidding aside, it was durirng my senior year and I was taking a War History class...not part of my major, but I am very interested in millitary history.

                              Prof was interesting. Very independent. Worked for CIA...God only knows what he was doing. He allowed me to focus my work for him on the mass media durring wartime. He didn't give me much direction. Just told me to research the hell out of the Korean, Vietnam and Gulf wars. He was able to set me up with three writers for three major newspapers that wrote durring the respective wars. As I researched, I found disturbing information regarding how soundbites had been used to distort the words of the interviewed people. I saw a transcript of what was actually said, and saw the "end product". Let's just say, it was nothing near what the person interviewed had said.

                              I'm not saying every journalist is a "lefty". I know this is not the case. However, I do know from people who are actually in Iraq that we are not being told a lot of positive things that are happening there...and I'm pretty much against the war over there..but even I had to take note...and wonder why my "mainstream news-source" is not sharing the positive things happening.

                              I feel more mistrustful of the news than I ever thought I could. I wish people had to be non-partisan in order to be reporters. Sure would make people like me who don't "belong" to any political group happier...I feel so jaded lately...seems nobody is trust-worthy to just say what happened and leave it at that. I do not like people telling me how to think...I try and use the ole' noggin sometimes...even if I don't always come to the "right" conclussions

                              Comment


                              • Pacificsolo, that is a valid point.I'm not sure if Television is to blame but it is quite true that there was a code many years ago that a Reporter on the news pages did not expose his or her prejudice. It was just the facts please and then we all knew on the Editorial page we found opinions.

                                Life was simple and straight forward without adjectives and emphasis or short cuts in print media.
                                http://www.usAHSA.org and http://www.noreinstatement.org

                                Comment


                                • OK, I'll give you a response... if you promise not to start talking about Hungarian gypsies.

                                  Pretty much everyone calls it the mainstream media. Kinda like how everyone calls Coca-Cola "Coke." Or how people call any kind of tissues "Kleenex." It's accepted vernacular.

                                  The perception of the liberal media, is just that -- a perception. Most journalists tend to be liberal on social issues and conservative on economic issues. And yes, they tend to vote Democratic.

                                  However, anyone who has ever worked in journalism knows that reporters have almost zero power. The editors decide the editorial direction of a paper. And there are lot more conservative head honchos in journalism (Rupert Murdoch, Jack Welch) than there are liberal ones.

                                  Did you ever notice how uncomplimentary the media coverage of Al Gore was? The press corps couldn't STAND him. And it showed.

                                  Did you notice how gleefully the media tore into Clinton over Whitewater and Monica Lewinsky?

                                  Did you notice how little questioning there was of the Bush administration's rationale for going into Iraq? The papers bought it hook, line and sinker... to the point that several big papers actually *apologized* for their coverage. The Washington Post actually did an analysis and discovered that the Bush administration's "news" on the war was usually reported on page A1 -- the news that might have made the administration look not-so-good was back around page A23.

                                  Actually, here's a reprint of the Post apology:

                                  http://www.unknownnews.net/040813postapology.html

                                  <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Days before the Iraq war began, veteran Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus put together a story questioning whether the Bush administration had proof that Saddam Hussein was hiding weapons of mass destruction.

                                  But he ran into resistance from the paper's editors, and his piece ran only after assistant managing editor Bob Woodward, who was researching a book about the drive toward war, "helped sell the story," Pincus recalled. "Without him, it would have had a tough time getting into the paper." Even so, the article was relegated to Page A17.

                                  "We did our job but we didn't do enough, and I blame myself mightily for not pushing harder," Woodward said in an interview. "We should have warned readers we had information that the basis for this was shakier" than widely believed. "Those are exactly the kind of statements that should be published on the front page." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

                                  From another apology for pre-war coverage that bashes the Post and the Times... reprint available at link below:

                                  http://www.unknownnews.net/040331anotherapology.html

                                  <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">A study released earlier this month by the University of Maryland's Center for International Security Studies at Maryland concluded that much of the prewar coverage about Iraq and weapons of mass destruction "stenographically reported the incumbent administration's perspective" and provided "too little critical examination of the way officials framed the events, issues, threats, and policy options." Too few stories, the study said, included perspectives that challenged the official line.

                                  A study published last month in The New York Review of Books reached a similar conclusion. "In the period before the war, U.S. journalists were far too reliant on sources sympathetic to the administration. Those with dissenting views -- and there were more than a few -- were shut out," writes Michael Massing, a Columbia Journalism Review contributing editor who authored the study. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

                                  The idea of a "liberal media" is one of those things that just gets repeated so often, people think it's true. While there are certainly papers that lean more liberally and some that lean more conservatively, there is not a widespread liberal bias in the media. It's a myth... like much of the rest of the stuff peddled by the conservative media machine of Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, et al.

                                  Comment


                                  • pacificsolo, from the '50s or so into the '70s, the media WAS considered to be a bit more liberal. (Coverage of civil rights issues, Vietnam, etc.) Not so today.

                                    As far as not being told about positive things happening in Iraq... we don't hear much about positive things happening HERE. Positive things are not generally considered as newsy as negative things... regardless of the politics involved.

                                    Comment


                                    • And you are entitled to believe that and to think it justifies calling them "mainstream". I also appreciate your courteous answer well phrased and rationally presented. It is so much more pleasant for a legitimate dialog.

                                      Obviously, I do not agree that Republicans have been questioned less. I think that Dwight Eisenhower was much misrepresented as a lazy golf playing wastrel; when in reality he was a brilliant stratigist who was responsible for winning WWII and never conceded to the capitulation to Russia but accepted the orders of his Commander-in-Chief.

                                      I think the the Press was very easy on Johnson, and Carter compared to their minutia against Reagan. So we can agree to disagree on the coverage of Presidents as impartial.

                                      I can see from your perspective that any comment that did not support the liberal concept would be much larger than the way I might view the same issue not as a conservative but rather as a Republican. I think I belong in the moderate ranks of the Republicans. Do you think you are in the moderate ranks of Democratic thinking or are you further left?

                                      I think as an individual I am responsible for myself and will either be rewarded or suffer loss because of my own actions. I do not expect the government to care for me; whatever my age.
                                      http://www.usAHSA.org and http://www.noreinstatement.org

                                      Comment


                                      • Erin, I bow to you.
                                        Congratulate me! My CANTER cutie is an honor student at Goofball University!

                                        Comment


                                        • Snowbird, whether I think anything "justifies" people calling it the mainstream media is irrelevant. That is simply what it's called. I certainly didn't coin the term.

                                          Interestingly, the rise of the conservative media came about right as Reagan was coming into office.... and with the rise of that conservative media, a lot more clamoring about "unfair" treatment of Republican presidents by the "liberal" press.

                                          There is no equivalent liberal media empire out there with such a huge reach claiming that Democrats are the victims of conservative bias... there's no liberal Rush or Fox News equivalent.

                                          So that might lead one to question whether the treatment *is* actually different, or if there are just a lot more voices on one side *claiming* that it is...

                                          If you actually do some research, you won't turn up non-partisan, independent evidence of the vast liberal media conspiracy that the right wing claims exists. In fact, most of the evidence you'll find will be the opposite.

                                          And personally, I put more stock in the analyses of people whose job it is to study these kinds of things than my own perception, or any other individual's perception.

                                          Comment

                                          Working...
                                          X