Posted on 05/26/2005 4:24:33 AM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest
It was just a throw-away line on a throw-away filler piece. Yet in its own way it was deeply revealing of the liberal mindset.
At the end of its top-of-the-hour news recap, Today ran a piece about a Florida family that had found a small alligator lounging in its backyard swimming pool. Today aired footage of authorities roping and removing the reptile.
Katie then murmured "gee, I hope it will be released and be OK," with Matt Lauer ominously informing Katie that things sometimes don't work out too well for the alligator in such situations.
So there it was. Katie's crocodile tears for . . . a crocodile. OK, an alligator, but who's counting?
Yet another example of the liberal mindset at work. From snail darters to spotted owls to baby seals to alligators, liberal hearts bleed at the thought of any harm being done to animals.
But 40 million and counting babies aborted since Roe v. Wade? Hey, when's the next march where we can "celebrate a woman's right to choose"? Starving and dehydrating Terri Schiavo to death? Hey, her life wasn't meaningful anyhow.
I'm sure Dan Rather and Mary Mapes had a similar light-hearted attitude towards our paltry efforts here at FR - until their forged-documents ship ran hard aground on the uncharted reef of Buckhead of the Free Republic...
No, I do agree. I think that you are helping bring some of this crap into the light.
Guess I just didn't associate national security with a baby alligator story. Obviously, there is NO way I could have known any of this from your original post. Still, I am not sure that Katie's personal views on abortion OR Terri Schiavo means that she should not report on a family having a man-eating reptile removed from their swimming pool.
I wasn't being flippant ... I think it's great that you guys are watching these people closely!!!
They've been getting away with lies for too long.
I had no problem with the story itself. In the very first line of my report, I described it as "just a throw-away line on a throw-away filler piece."
It's the lack of moral consistency that bothers me. If once, just once, in the course of her career, she had similarly shed a tear for the victims of abortion . . .
I may not feel that EVERY story needs to be examined, such as the gator thing, but I DO agree.
I absolutely LOATHE our American MSM and what they are doing, or trying to do.
Mostly I reponded to this story because I just get sick of everyone twisting ANY story into a Terri Schiavo or abortion debate.
You're all over the place.
I don't think the family who had the man-eating reptile in their pool feel the same. Escpecially if 'mama' decided to show up and decided to protect her baby. =)
Read the posts from the beginning AND know what I am talking about before you respond ... okay?
I'm going to hang it up for the time being on this thread. I think it's been constructive. Sofwarecreator wandered in, and on a certain level I can understand his view about Schiavo being invoked in apparently unrelated stories. He was unaware of the tradition of FR's Today Show threads.
Now that he understands what we're up to with these reports, I think he has acknowledged their value. I'm willing to leave it at that, with the hope that he will check out future threads.
For after all, tomorrow is another Today! (to coin a phrase...)
Oh great, here come the PETA people! =)
Does that come with a rim-shot? =)
Come on, this a non sequitor and completely nonsensical. This was nothing more than a fluffy story about an alligator.
I am worn out after a protracted back and forth with softwarecreator on this thread. To be short and sweet: I had no objection to the story itself. My point is simply that Katie expresses concern for animals, but never does so for unborn humans. I see a moral obtuseness in that. Do you need to be so quick in accusing a fellow FReeper of being nonsensical?
I don't watch any of the morning shows and don't have the slightest idea what Katie does and doesn't express concern for. If she does believe abortions should be legal and available (which she probably does, but, once again, I pay no attention at all to the woman), then there's absolutely no way she would express concern for an unborn person on the show, would she? And even if she wanted to, how would she intro it? Show an abortion?
Sorry about the nonsensical remark. I should have just stuck with non sequitor.
I appreciate your post. Let's put terminology behind us and discuss the issue.
I used to be pro-choice. I began shifting some years ago when I heard someone on the radio - it might have been Rush - point out the hypocrisy of animal rights advocates, most of whom it's fair to assume are pro-choice - being so concerned about killing baby seals yet utterly indifferent to the killing of unborn humans.
So perhaps I'm particularly touchy on the issue, but when I hear a liberal waxing emotional over harm to an animal, it bothers me. How can they be so exquisitely sensitive when it comes to animals, yet so utterly indifferent when it comes to humans?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.