George W. Bush stated, in regards to protestors, that he was pleased to be in a country where people are allowed to speak their minds.
I may have missed a memo, but…isn’t he *usually* in a country where people are allowed to speak their minds? Or is that an intriguing Freudian slip as to how he views the Ashcroft America in which we currently reside?
Ah well. What *I* would love to see is Bush brought down for that regular Have Your Opposition Yell In Your Face thing in Parliament that Tony Blair is always subjected to. No careful management, no prepared speeches. Just a whole bunch of people who don’t like you getting up close and personal and telling you exactly what you’re doing wrong, and you have to loudly and articulately defend your positions. Man, who wouldn’t pay serious money to see that?
PAD
• 
Let’s continue the play until Glenn removes my piece from the board. Shall we?
On the one hand, we have this by Mr. MaxTemkin:
Conservatives tend to see issues in black and white, right and wrong. It makes everything easy… “This is the problem, and this is the only answer.” It makes for great 30-second sound-bytes, and it’s a very attractive style of thought.
Us liberals, on the other hand, are more skeptical of authority, of the government. They see all the layers of an issue, and it is often not possible for us to see issues in black and white. This means that we are less content with the easy answers, the quick fixes, and the simple solutions. We look deeper into issues, and we choose an educated opinion even if it is difficult to accept, or runs contrary to what we are told to choose by the government.
Now let’s look at another thought by Mr. Kevin Ryan:
I should add that I recognize that there are conservative ideas not consitant with them either, however, by and large, the core concept behind conservatism is that people can run there own lives without governance and with liberalism, the core value is that people require government to function in their daily lives.
Which sounds more likely? Which sounds more reasonable? The one who didn’t say that I was more likely to be a stupid person sounds a good deal more reasonable from my biased position.
Judging by history…. Mr. Ryan is correct and the other guy is wrong.
This is truly how a progressive social agenda is achieved, and we all owe Mr. David a great thanks for pushing in the right direction.
He means the left direction. I’m trying to push people in the right direction. I never get confused about my party.
CJA
the more i see of our government, the more disgusted and ashamed i become…
Which is why I prefer less government. Heck, I would love it if all of our Presidents took more time off. Centralizing control of our resources this much can be a baaaaad deal, regardless of whom you voted for.
Eric: Peter, come on. I know you can do better than this. “Ashcroft America” really? Oh, please. This hatred of Bush is so petty. You know what hurts democrats is that when it comes to choosing between legitamate critiques of administration policy in a mature rational manner or a personal attack accusing Bush of being satan himself who wants to poison the water, starve children, and trip little old ladies, the democrats always choose the personal attack.
Luigi Novi: This is something of an exaggeration. For one thing, there are plenty of legitimate criticisms of Bush and Ashcroft from reasoned critics. For another, personal attacks are hardly the sole domain of the Democratic Party. There is nothing inherently “high ground” of one party of the other.
Eric: Saddam did use chemical weapons after the gulf war to quell an unprising. That is a fact. The UN inspection teams were never able to account for what Saddam did with those weapons.
Luigi Novi: Those were chemicals we gave to Iraq. To my knowledge, there is no evidence that he acquired more after using them on his people.
Eric: The fight is in Iraq right now, and if it weren’t there it would be in our streets.
Luigi Novi: Excuse me? If we didn’t go to Iraq, there would be fighting in our streets? Care to explain this a bit more?
Del: Um… maybe *I* missed something, but where in the above statement is it implied that he’s *not* usually in a free-speaking country? I think you’re reaching…
Tom: It was clear that he was comparing the rights of the protesters to the rights of the Iraqis under Saddam’s rule.
Mark: Saying he values GOING to a country with free speech does not imply that he’s LEAVING a country that doesn’t have it.
Luigi Novi: This is pretty much what my reaction was to Peter’s comment. On this, I agree with you.
Luigi Novi: Your argument, therefore, that free speech is not coming under attack because Peter is able to denounce Bush on this blog, is a fallacy.
Del: Quoting Michael Moore, as though facts were a priority for him, is a fallacy.
Luigi Novi: Only if the information derived from the book is shown to be untrue. You have not done this. Therefore, such an argument is just an ad hominem one. If arbitrarily deciding that every single fact he provides is de facto untrue simply because some of the assertions made in his documentary were in question (as if reporters and documentarians never make mistakes or get things wrong), then I could just as easily do the same thing with The Weekly Standard website page that you linked to. I won’t do that. I will instead confine my arguments to the non-rhetorical, non-ad hominem variety:
REGARDING MOORE:
I do question some of the material in Bowling for Columbine. But that doesn’t mean that subsequently, every time he says “up,” that the truth is really “down.” Rather, the assertions should double-checked for their own validity. Moore includes an End Notes section in the back of Dude, Where’s My Country?, where the assertions in each section of book are attributed to their sources, which include such varied sources as The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, The Chicago Tribune, The New York Times, The Progressive, USA Today, The Guardian, The Economist, etc. The section on abuses under the Patriot Act in particular are attributed to “Report on U.S. antiterrorism law alleges violations of civil rights,” by Philip Sermon, New York Times, July 21, 2003. If you want to impeach the reliability of the assertions I’ve related here, Del, you’ll have to do so by showing how the source Moore provided was not reliable, not by simply arguing that the assertion itself is a logical fallacy because you don’t like the person reporting it. You can’t simply slap the label “logical fallacy” on anything you jolly well don’t feel like believing.
REGARDING THE SADDAM/AL-QUAIDA LINK:
The assertion is certainly interesting, and would bear further investigation, since it seems to contradict everything that U.S. and British intelligence have thus far been saying about Saddam’s participation in 9/11, and his relationship to Bin Laden, and I haven’t heard about this memo anywhere else. (And no, this in itself does not call it into question.) But the fact that they had a relationship is not in dispute, and is something that’s been common knowledge. What’s also common knowledge is that they hate each other. Bin Laden hates Hussein because he ran Iraq as a secular country, complete with churches and synagogues as well as mosques, because he killed his own people, and because his invasion of Kuwait was not only an attack against other Muslims, but lead to the U.S.-led coalition’s use of his country, Saudi Arabia, where the holy cities Mecca and Medina are located, as a base. But whether they had a relationship is not the question, because that’s well known. The question is whether Saddam had anything to do with 9/11.
One question I would ask is, if their operational relationship included training in explosives and weapons of mass destruction, and logistical support for terrorist attacks, and Hussein has chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, then why didn’t the 9/11 terrorists use any? They simply used fueled airliners are missles with no chemical, biological or nuclear additions to those payloads.
Del: It seems to me that complaints about infringed free speech have long pre-dated Bush’s presidency, so this notion that somehow Ashcroft is responsible for all the current oppression is pretty limp.
Luigi Novi: The fact is, such civil rights violations have increased, and because of the Patriot Act. You again using Straw Man argument, implying that someone is arguing that there were no free speech complaints prior to Ashcroft. That’s untrue, and no one ever said it was. John Stossel did an entire special on such free speech battles. But the Patriot Act is simply one more front on that battlefield. What’s limp is this “all-or-nothing” idea that it’s “all Ashcroft’s fault,” or “all not Ashcroft’s fault,” when the problem is that such violations have simply increased. It’s like arguing that Jeffrey Dahmer wasn’t really a murderer because, well, there were murders going on before him. One has nothing to do with the other.
Elayne Riggs: It should probably be pointed out that conservatives who accuse the Democrats of hatemongering neither understand the difference between hate and justifiable anger nor have any moral ground on which to stand considering their still-active vendetta against everyone who doesn’t agree with their political views (in specific the Clinton administratin, but by extension most Democrats).
Ken: This is an incredibly biased opinion, not based in reality or fact.
Luigi Novi: It is based ENTIRELY in reality and fact. Should we discuss the Republicans’ distortion of Paul Wellstone’s memorial? Or at least three different lies they spread about things Al Gore said? Or the way they constantly mischaracterize the media as liberal, when in fact it’s far more conservative? Should we examine some of the wisdom of Anne Coulter, who thinks we should kill the leaders of Muslim countries and convert them to Christianity, or Sean Hannity, who can’t tolerate a dissenting caller to his radio show without resorting to ad hominem arguments and hypocrisy? Or Rush Limbaugh, who talked about how more white people should be arrested, convicted and sent to prison for drugs, while himself sending out his cleaning lady to score Oxycontin for him?
Ken: Or as most rational people saw it, he was a concerned person trying to reassure America that action would be taken to prevent a tragedy like that from happening again.
Luigi Novi: Which is not justification for violating civil liberties, as the Patriot Act does.
Ken: Your calling his actions boastful is you transferring your personal opinions about him, not what really happened.
Luigi Novi: Scott’s point was that Ashcroft wants to sacrifice civil liberties for a perception of greater security.
Kevin Ryan: In Regards to Luigi Novi’s Michael Moore quotes “Ashcroft’s america”, I did a bit of research.
Turns out, once again, Mr. Moore streches the truth.
Luigi Novi: Kevin, thank you for researching it. Can you tell me where you found this out? I would encourage you to email your info to Michael Moore, and let me/us know his reaction. I myself already have, but it would have more credence if the source for your counterarguments could be included, which I did not have. 🙂
Ken: I’m not sure what you are trying to say here, I am not talking about a philosophical truth but the actual truth. One of the definitions of truth in my dictionary is fact. The are synonyms.
Travis: In an ideal world maybe, but there are still people who believe that the truth is that no jews were killed in the holocaust. That white people are superior to any other race. And that needles were injected into candy bars and handed out at Halloween in the mid-eighties. Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Truth has and always will be subjective. Something that is believed. That is why religion is sooo messy. Because everyone believes that theirs is truth. Facts are things that are documented. This is a computer, I am typing at: fact. GWB is an idiot… truth or not truth? up to you and whomever. Depends on what they believe.
Luigi Novi: You’re mixing apples and oranges, Travis. The truths at the heart of religions most certainly ARE subjective. The holocaust and urban legends about Halloween candy, on the other hand, are not. Those are empirical matters that are most certainly questions of FACT. The Holocaust, for example IS a documented fact. Conversely, the myth about Halloween candy is not documented. That doesn’t make it subjective. It simply makes it a falsehood.
Kevin Ryan: It seems to me, that outside of confusing footnotes with endnotes, neither you, nor Al Franken, have yet to debunk an Ann Coulter comment yet.
Luigi Novi: Then you haven’t done a lot of research. The “footnotes with endnotes” comment indicates that you’ve read Al Franken’s book, so are you saying that all the examples he cited of her distortions are in question? If so, could you provide some examples of his fallacies or inaccuracies?
What about the time, related by Alan Colmes in his book, Red, White & Liberal, that she went on Hannity & Colmes and Colmes asked her to name one of these “liberal traitors” she goes on about in her most recent book, and the only one she could name (after telling Colmes that he himself was a traitor), was an advisor under FDR who advised him to go to the Yalta Conference despite the assertion that there was a spy in the administration, which could’ve been chalked up to ignorance on that advisor’s part, and that when Colmes pressed to aim a living example, Coulter balked?
Or the way she broadly characterizes liberals as “hating America,” “hating religion,” etc.?
Or the fact that Coulter seems to define “treason” as simply being wrong about some policy, when in fact the word refers to a deliberate attempt to overthrow the government? (I guess “Being Wrong” just doesn’t have the book-selling ring that “Treason” does.)
Kevin Ryan: Here’s the CORRECT Quote from Coulter-
“Everyone says liberals love America, too. No they don’t. Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence.”
So, there you are. Tell me, at what point did liberals take a pro-america position in a national crisis? on Iraq? 9-11? Vietnam?
Luigi Novi: When did liberals NOT take a “pro-America” position on those things? Was there some group of liberals celebrating on 9/11?
luke: lied to his own people about doing it, and falsified evidence to do it.
The Blue Spider: I’m still very hesitant to believe these kinds of accusations given…. just because I’d rather wait a few years to determine this kind of stuff. Mostly because assuming that the President lied and falsified all that makes me assume that those accusing him know better regarding all the relevent facts.
Luigi Novi: No, it’s a reflection of the fact that he relied on poor, and even falsified information to call for war on Iraq.
The Blue Spider: Luigi Novi, I am perfectly content to take any of your comments and opinions seriously as long as you don’t suggest that I ever use a Michael Moore book as a source of information.
Luigi Novi: And I will do the same with yours when you cease resorting to ad hominem arguments to refute them. If you want to refute a given assertion, that’s just what you have to do. Moore cites his sources. Show that either those sources were questionable, or that his use of them was. But saying that you don’t feel like listening to it or believing it because it came from a book written by someone you don’t like doesn’t cut it.
Jim Burdo: The Patriot Act has nothing to do with what you cite. It concerns electronic interception and information gathering.
Luigi Novi: Wrong.
First of all, it’s not limited to the electronic. The Act allows the attorney general’s office to demand and receive any information from anyone it wants by issuing what is called a “national security letter.” The Act allows agents to search your home using secret warrants, and without informing you that they’ve been there. It also provides for a gag order so that if say, someone goes through your library records, the library is prohibited from mentioning it under pain of prosecution.
Second, where is it indicated that the electronic privileges granted to investigators by the Act were not used on the aforementioned people detained? Is it not possible that they had their banking records, school records, library book habits, consumer purchases, and medical records rifled through, which is what their interrogators used to detain them?
Bob DeGraff: Anyone hear Bush say this week that we had to use force in Iraq to “defend our values”? Wow, when you add that to the “weapons of mass destruction” reason and the “free the oppressed Iraqi people” reason, we tend to come of as kind of inconsistant don’t we?
The Blue Spider: I don’t understand how having three unrelated reasons to perform one task is a sign of inconsistancy.
Luigi Novi: I agree.
Jim Burdo: How about this for vomitous: Ted Rall calling for the deaths of US troops.
http://andrewsullivan.com/index.php?dish_inc=archives/2003_11_09_dish_archive.html#106870294027804545
As Sullivan says, Ann Coulter couldn’t come up with something this depraved.
Luigi Novi: Reading that essay, it seemed like sarcasm to me. Of course, if it weren’t, then perhaps Ann Coulter has found herself an inverse soulmate! 🙂 They deserve one another.
Jim Burdo: Orwell observed (Notes on Nationalism, May 1945), “[T]here is a minority of intellectual pacifists whose real though unadmitted motive appears to be hatred of western democracy and admiration of totalitarianism….
Luigi Novi: An anecdote written several decades ago hardly lends credence to Coulter’s statements that all liberals are traitors who hate America, or that any of them took “anti-American” stances on Vietnam, 9/11, or Iraq. The fact remains that being opposed to war, or any kind of policy that your government undertakes has nothing to do with being “anti-American.”
Jim Burdo: There were plenty of leftists whose response to 9/11 was to say America brought it upon itself.
Luigi Novi: The question of how America is seen by the rest of the world vis a vis its foreign policy and the exportation of its business and culture, the consequences (positive and negative) of that viewpoint on the part of the rest of the world is a legitimate point of study, and exploring the possibility that hatred of the U.S. abroad stems at least in part because of these things is not something that should be dismissed as “anti-American.”
Jim Burdo: Actually, most of the Democrats running for president opposed the first Gulf War. As for Afghanistan, you must have missed Rall, Chomsky, and Ivins and the Green Party. James Lileks noted that the protests against the Afghan war were a rehearsal for the ones against Gulf War II, with same predictions of quagmire and disaster.
Luigi Novi: That has nothing to do with being anti-American.
Peter David: Does she actually believe that after the destruction of the World Trade Center, liberals SIDED WITH BIN LADEN? Taken to its logical extreme, she’s contending that every single liberal is a traitor, supporting those who would destroy the United States.”
Kevin Ryan: Yeah, Pete, a lot of them did. They speculated that since the United States has been so involved in the politcal direction of the middle east, that this was bound to happen, and that if we’d minded our own business, it wouldn’t have.
Luigi Novi: That’s a load of bull. Can you cite specifics that indicate it was all or most of them? Or even “a lot”?
Kevin Ryan: And, yes, Coulter does actually speculate that Liberalism in America has a long tradition of supporting it’s enemies and that it borders on treasonous. Now I don’t know if I’d go that far, but certainly Liberalism in its modern politcal form is not consitant with core America values such as freedom of idea, speech and self-determination…. with liberalism, the core value is that people require government to function in their daily lives.
Luigi Novi: More distortion. You simply have a distorted view of what liberalism is.
Kevin Ryan: Today, in a speech broadcast on VPR, Robert Kennedy Jr. states that “one cannot have free market economy without additional government oversight of business and corporations as without it, the community will have no say as to how business conducts itself.”
Neat idea Bob, except that free market economy is, by definition, a marketplace free of government intrusion. And that, Peter, is how liberals hate America.
Luigi Novi: No, that is an idea of how one politician may be ignorant of how free market economies work. That has nothing to do with “hate” of any kind, let alone hate of America in particular. To connect one with the other is a non sequitur.
Kevin Ryan: Coulter did say Liberals hate all religon except Islam (after 9-11).
What she refered to, given the correct context, is that whenever a public issue arises involving a religous belief or issue, the liberal concensus is to oppose that position….until 9/11, when liberals all across the nation defended Islam as a peaceful, moderate religon. Maybe on paper….
Luigi Novi: First, that is still an exaggeration. Second, that second statement, while a bit softer in its use of qualifiers, isn’t a “context.” It’s an entirely different statement that bears no resemblance to the first statement, which is what she actually said. Is it possible that she actually meant the latter? Perhaps. But the fact that she is incapable of speaking in more measured terms like that is precisely why she is seen as a frothing-at-the-mouth propagandist.
Jeff: I find it interesting that Ann Coulter is being vilified for being a consertive and voicing her opinion.
Luigi Novi: She isn’t being vilified for being conservative or for voicing her opinion. She is criticized for statements that are wildly exaggerated, one-sided, and bigoted.
Jeff: Yet, Al Franken is defended, until something he says is proven wrong, then the excuse is “but he’s a comedian”.
Luigi Novi: When has something he has said been proven wrong?
**Jeff: Yet, Al Franken is defended, until something he says is proven wrong, then the excuse is “but he’s a comedian”.
Luigi Novi: When has something he has said been proven wrong?**
I don’t read Franken – or Coulter for that matter, so I’ll admit to speaking from reputation only here. However, Franken is a satirist. Therefore, to hold up his satire as an argument for/against something is wrong from the start. It’s like holding up one of Rush Limbaugh’s parody ads or a Doonsbury cartoon as “the truth”. They aren’t the truth, but it might be too close for comfort.
“Luigi Novi: When has something he has said been proven wrong?”
Well, someone tried. There’s a bookstore out by me that has a copy of Al Franken is a Buck-Toothed Moron, which is clearly a parody of Franken’s first book.
I’ve only read the preface of it, and right there I saw the guy probably wasn’t going to accomplish what he set out to do. The primary mistake the guy makes is blasting Franken because satirists are supposed to be “objective.” I don’t know where he got that, honestly, since I’ve never heard of objective satire, and this guy wasn’t especially objective himself, since he both made it very clear that he was a conservative right off the bat and (this is my favorite part) underneath the title of the book was, in bright red, made to look like someone added it as an afterthought, the words, “The Right Strikes Back!!!”
I can’t say if the guy did actually prove Franken wrong in this book, but he was clearly making an effort.
Another thing the guy wrote that caught my attention was something along these lines:
I’ve figured out how to tell the difference between a conservative and a liberal — it’s the kinds of scandals they get caught in. Conservatives get caught in shady deals, complete with back-alley meetings and vague conversations full of pronouns. Liberals only get caught in sex scandals.
He has a good point. However, I don’t think it proves what he wanted it to. For my thinking, I’d rather have someone who’s immoral but ethical rather than a moral person who’s unethical. I have no use for those who are both immoral and unethical.
For anyone interested in the actual quote, and not Peter’s mangling of it, here it is:
Americans traveling to England always observe more similarities to our country than differences. I’ve been here only a short time, but I’ve noticed that the tradition of free speech — exercised with enthusiasm — is alive and well here in London. We have that at home, too. They now have that right in Baghdad, as well.
Doesn’t seem like a slipup when you put it like that, now does it?
He points out that America and England are similar, points out how the two countries are similar when it comes to free speech (with a little nod to the crowd of protesters), and then notes that the Iraqi people now enjoy the same freedom.
Next time, Peter, give us the actual quote, and try to inject some common sense into your interpretation of it. In this instance, it really does sound as though *you* can’t read. I mean, really, which part of “We have that at home, too” don’t you understand?
-Dave O’Connell
Blue Spider:
Heck, I’d disagree. Fascists and Socialists have much in common. Centrists are centrists.
Um, I wasn’t talking about fascists and socialists, not that I can recall. Maybe I should have been more specific and said “the majority of non-extremist liberals and conservatives.”
Conservatives and liberals are typically defined by diametrically opposite positions when micro-managing various issues. Then there’s a comparison on which positions and issues are the highest priority and which public advocates champion which issues and topics and causes that determines what in the end someone usually labels himself as or what side they join. Or usually people just say “the hëll with it” and call themselves “moderates” and end up as swing voters.
So it’s not nearly as simple as you make it out to be. It’s obscenely complicated.
Actually, that’s exactly what I was talking about when I said “the realization of those ideals through concrete actions, particularly on a political/governmental level.”
Then again, are we arguing for classification of “decent human being” or something that differentiates the ‘how’ of the matter, because then we get into problems.
I think what I’m trying to say is that people seem less and less likely to acknowledge the possibility that people on the other side may in fact be “decent human beings.” This goes for both sides at times.
As a result, debates get pointlessly nasty, the possiblity for dialogue and mutually satisfying compromise is lost, and we’re left with a bunch of namecalling as people try to put down their opponents while claiming the intellectual high ground for themselves. Seems to happen on this board from time to time. Doesn’t seem to accomplish much, does it?
For anyone interested in the actual quote, and not Peter’s mangling of it, here it is:
“Americans traveling to England always observe more similarities to our country than differences. I’ve been here only a short time, but I’ve noticed that the tradition of free speech — exercised with enthusiasm — is alive and well here in London. We have that at home, too. They now have that right in Baghdad, as well.”
Actually, Peter wasn’t quoting Bush’s speech. He was referring to something Bush said to the Press Association:
“I am so pleased to be going to a country which says that people are allowed to express their mind. That’s fantastic. Freedom is a beautiful thing.”
Here’s the link: http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/11/18/britain.protests/index.html
Though I don’t think that Bush was implying that US citizens *aren’t* allowed to express their minds.
But could the Hulk beat Supergirl?
Here’s a link for those who think Michael Moore is Mr.Objective Fact Finder: http://www.jewishworldreview.com/1103/goldblatt.html
Alright then, if that’s what Peter is actually referring to (although it would’ve been nice for him to provide the actual quote to avoid confusion, since the two quotes are of similar length and touch on the same topic)….
…here’s the actual exchange….
Reporter: Are you concerned at all about the protests (reporter inaudible for a couple of seconds, then Bush jumps in for his response)
Bush: No. Not concerned at all. Glad to be going to a free country. Where people are allowed to protest. Not the least bit.
First of all, it’s “protest”, not “speak their minds”, as Peter wrote. Just for the record, since those two concepts differ somewhat.
But more to the point…
It seems as though the exchange is centering around whether or not Bush is concerned about any possible security issues surrounding his visit. Taking into account that he is traveling to a democracy, Bush puts his trust in the people of that country to protest in a civil manner and for the authorities to deal with the protestors in a civil manner. As opposed to the violent silencing of dissent in non-democratic countries, like Iraq under Hussein’s rule. Hence, no concerns about the protests. That’s how I interpreted it, anyway.
Another possible interpreation, this one of the subtle ‘screw you’ variety: “I’m not concerned about the protests because I’m going to a country where none of the protestors can vote against me in the 2004 election. So what’s not to be happy about?”)
Of course, Peter is more liberal than I am, and it’s not surprising that he would interpret Bush’s remarks the way he did. Of course, if you throw the remarks from his London speech into the mix (as Peter could have easily done), then it becomes obvious what he means. Not that Peter would have had to think too hard to come up with another explanation for Bush’s original remarks, anyway.
-Dave O’Connell
Yeah, Pete, a lot of them did. They speculated that since the United States has been so involved in the politcal direction of the middle east, that this was bound to happen, and that if we’d minded our own business, it wouldn’t have. They didn’t out and out advocate that the WTC should have been bombed, but they sure made excuses for it.
Okay…you *do* realize all those statements that you just held up as an example of why liberals are to be seen as enemies of the state are all *correct*, right? *Anyone* who supports Israel or advocates peace with Israel is a target for terrorism, as the ghost of Anwar Sadat could tell you. If we’d never gotten involved in the Middle East, yes, 9/11 might not have happened.
You don’t seem to comprehend that some people are capable of holding more than one thought in their head at a time. The liberal thinking–if that’s to whom you insist on ascribing it–involves not only reacting to something that did happen, but understanding *why* it happened. You seem to consider that unAmerican or weak-kneed or hatred of this country. It’s not. Just because liberals consider all the reasons for something occurring, it’s not the same as saying, “We had it coming.” This is a distinction that you, and those who share your opinion, apparently cannot make.
Do you seriously think that I, an advocate and supporter of Israel, believe that we shouldn’t have done so because it resulted in terrorism? Obviously not. I understand *why* 9/11 happened, but that doesn’t mean I’m glad it did or felt we deserved it. I don’t think you really comprehend that distinction, because the sort of thinking you represent has a simple message: “Who cares why they did it, let’s kill them all in retaliation. Let’s end terrorism by killing all the terrorism.” How’s that thinking working out so far? Not so great. But God forbid one should think beyond that, because then you’re a fuzzy minded America hating liberal and a traitor to boot.
Oh…and you can generally tell who’s the most condescending posters around here. They’re the ones who call me “Pete.”
PAD
Next time, Peter, give us the actual quote, and try to inject some common sense into your interpretation of it. In this instance, it really does sound as though *you* can’t read. I mean, really, which part of “We have that at home, too” don’t you understand?
If that quote had been posted in its entirety on the AOL newsfeed where I read it, I’d never have said anything because, in context, it’s utterly innocuous and utterly right. Unfortunately, it wasn’t. It simply quoted him as saying that it was good to be in a country that had freedom of speech. Thank you for bringing that to my attention.
PAD
Luigi: Just a little bit on Michael Moore. I was looking for exact quotes from you to pull, but weeding through 100+ posts to find ’em just seemed too much work, so you’ll excuse me if I paraphrase.
Basically, you feel that people who automatically dismiss information presented by Michael Moore because he’s Michael Moore are guilty of making ad hominem attacks. And to a certain extent you’re right. BUT. Moore, like Ann Coulter, has a habit of writing about a topic (in his case, something liberal, in her case, something conservative) and supplementing it with “facts”, complete with citations (footnotes, endnotes, whatever the heck you wanna call ’em). That their citations are technically correct isn’t in question. However, Mr. Moore, just like Ms. Coulter, tend to only be technically correct, since the citations are often misrepresented and/or taken out of context. These repeated abuses of forensic style make both Moore and Coulter objectively irreputable sources. To not take the arguments from one or the other at face value isn’t intrinsically a matter of politics, it’s a matter of learning from past experience.
It doesn’t mean that either of them are any less of a good visceral read, but both Moore and Coulter are the intellectual equivalent of an action movie — you can only find it enjoyable so long as you suppress an awareness of how things actually work.
“I am so pleased to be going to a country which says that people are allowed to express their mind. That’s fantastic. Freedom is a beautiful thing.”
Oh. Okay, never mind. I take it back. Now *that’s* typical Bush. Countries don’t “say” anything, the rest of the comment is simplistic, and yeah, it makes it sound as if he’s not normally in a country advocating free speech.
Purely guessing: Was the well-phrased, thoughtful commentary part of a speech, while the badly phrased one was Bush as himself? Just curious.
PAD
Peter and the rest of you,
Let me see if I can sort out the confusion here.
An earlier poster (not myself) said that the Bush quote that started this whole thread came from an interview with the Press Association, and not from a 9/16 press gathering as I (mistakenly) assumed.
Here is that exchange:
Q: And Tony Blair on Monday night — and he would probably have told you, is expecting there to be quite a lot of protestors about the war. What would be your message to those protestors?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, freedom is a beautiful thing, I would first say, and aren’t you lucky to be in a country that encourages people to speak their mind. And I value going to a country where people are free to say anything they want to say.
First of all, the poster (and CNN, but we’ll get to that later) is wrong. This is from a BBC-TV interview of the President by David Frost on 11/12/03.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/11/20031117-1.html
Now, *every single one of you*, read that exchange carefully. Does this change your interpretation of what Bush said? Because if originally you thought of it like Peter did, it should.
I think the trap Peter fell into was not searching out the original text of the remarks and comparing them to the CNN-ized version. My mistake was posting two other similar quotes from the same time period on this message board, thinking they were the ones Peter was referring to. Not that Peter made it clear what exactly he was talking about in the first place, but I made the mistake of thinking that Peter had screwed up when it really was CNN who had screwed it up.
I think if Peter had read the original transcript of the interview, he would’ve never made this a topic in the first place. Am I right?
Because it seems really obvious that Bush is telling the protestors that they are lucky to live in a place where they *can* say what they want to say and that the war in Iraq was waged to bring that same freedom to the Iraqis.
In short, it’s much ado about nothing, but I think Peter was misled by some shoddy journalism on CNN’s part.
In the future, Peter, please reference these things a bit better. Do you know how much Bush talk I had to read and listen to in order to figure out exactly what you were referencing? It’s not fun, let me tell you. He’s not that poetic of a speaker. But he didn’t put his foot in his mouth this time.
If nothing else, this should be a lesson to always go back to the original text before you form an opinion about something.
Posted by nekouken, from a book blasting Al Franken:
I’ve figured out how to tell the difference between a conservative and a liberal — it’s the kinds of scandals they get caught in. Conservatives get caught in shady deals, complete with back-alley meetings and vague conversations full of pronouns. Liberals only get caught in sex scandals.
He has a good point. However, I don’t think it proves what he wanted it to.
Luigi Novi: Not even. William Bennet, John Tower, Rush Limbaugh and Trent Lott were involved in flaps and scandals that had nothing to do with shady deals, and some of them, like the ones Larry Flynt outed during the impeachment hearings, were exposed as adulterers. Conversely, liberals have non-sex scandals. Clinton had Whitewater, in addition to Lewinsky, DC Mayor Marion Barry had his cocaine scandal, etc.
AlanM: Basically, you feel that people who automatically dismiss information presented by Michael Moore because he’s Michael Moore are guilty of making ad hominem attacks. And to a certain extent you’re right. BUT. Moore, like Ann Coulter, has a habit of writing about a topic (in his case, something liberal, in her case, something conservative) and supplementing it with “facts”, complete with citations (footnotes, endnotes, whatever the heck you wanna call ’em). That their citations are technically correct isn’t in question. However, Mr. Moore, just like Ms. Coulter, tend to only be technically correct, since the citations are often misrepresented and/or taken out of context. These repeated abuses of forensic style make both Moore and Coulter objectively irreputable sources. To not take the arguments from one or the other at face value isn’t intrinsically a matter of politics, it’s a matter of learning from past experience.
It doesn’t mean that either of them are any less of a good visceral read, but both Moore and Coulter are the intellectual equivalent of an action movie — you can only find it enjoyable so long as you suppress an awareness of how things actually work.
Luigi Novi: Well said, Alan, thank you.:-) But does that mean that we should dismiss anything said by either one of them without first double-checking it?
CORRECTION, TWO POSTS UP: That should be 11/16, not 9/16. That’s one of the two I got confused with Peter’s Bush quote, the other being the pertinent quote from his London speech.
Of course, that pales in comparison to the confusion caused for anyone trying to figure out what the hëll Ann Coulter and Michael Moore have to do with this topic.
-Dave O’Connell
Jim BUrdo wrote:
“There were plenty of leftists whose response to 9/11 was to say America brought it upon itself.”
Plenty of right-wingers who said that too, weren’t there? “This is a punishment for being lenient towards
Oh. Okay, never mind. I take it back. Now *that’s* typical Bush. Countries don’t “say” anything, the rest of the comment is simplistic, and yeah, it makes it sound as if he’s not normally in a country advocating free speech.
Only if you try really, really hard to make it sound so.
PAD wrote: Oh. Okay, never mind. I take it back. Now *that’s* typical Bush. Countries don’t “say” anything, the rest of the comment is simplistic, and yeah, it makes it sound as if he’s not normally in a country advocating free speech.
Peter, every comment you make on Bush just oozes with liberal intellectual snobbery. You are better than this. Your comment that countries don’t “say” anything is so annoying. Do you feel the need to point out that the weatherman is wrong everytime he speaks of the sun setting (a reference originating from the old geo-centric pov)? I bet you don’t, because you realize it is a figure of speech. No big deal.
PAD wrote: You don’t seem to comprehend that some people are capable of holding more than one thought in their head at a time.
What I don’t understand is when people have what the deceased philosopher Francis Schaffer called “Points of Tension” going on in their head at one time.
Luigi Novi: Well said, Alan, thank you.:-) But does that mean that we should dismiss anything said by either one of them without first double-checking it?
In my opinion, yes it does. The question becomes a matter of, is this person likely to be accurate or inaccurate in their representation of facts. Given that both of them are known to (consciously or not) repeatedly misrepresent information, a philosophy of assuming them being inaccurate barring outside corroboration should be the order of the day.
Now Franken (since he’s also come up in this discussion) I have yet to see any extensive disproofs for (doesn’t mean they don’t exist; only that I haven’t seen ’em), so for me he continues to get the benefit of the doubt.
Of course, that pales in comparison to the confusion caused for anyone trying to figure out what the hëll Ann Coulter and Michael Moore have to do with this topic.
They have bûggër all to do with this, really, other than that the latter was cited, and the former trotted out as an equally ludicrous counter-point. I’m just talking about ’em ’cause, well, it entertains me to do so, and I like the sound of my own virtual voice. 🙂
Anonymous people suck.
I atleast have the gall to put my name to my posts, regardless of what they say. 🙂
Us liberals, on the other hand, are more skeptical of authority, of the government. They see all the layers of an issue, and it is often not possible for us to see issues in black and white. This means that we are less content with the easy answers, the quick fixes, and the simple solutions. We look deeper into issues, and we choose an educated opinion even if it is difficult to accept, or runs contrary to what we are told to choose by the government.
Does this mean that all Republicans or conservatives are simple or stupid? No, but to quote John Stewart Mill, “Not all conservatives are stupid, but most stupid people are conservative.”
I can see it in my high school, in my community, and in my country, and conservatives in all of those places attack me because I challenge their preconceptions and their black-and-white viewpoints. We need to take a stand, and embrace that which is right and true, even if it’s difficult to do so. I commend Peter David for continuing to stand strong, and to defend his choice to the conservatives posting on this blog.
OK, first of all, does anyone else see the tension in announcing 1) that liberals see things in gradations of gray rather than black and white, but 2) also defend what’s right and true?
Republicans also strive to protect what’s right and true. We do tend to have different opinions on what is right and true than Democrats and other assorted leftists hold, though. Are we always right? Doubtful. Are Democrats always wrong? Of course not. Nearly every Republican who’s not named David Duke will agree that the Dems were right about the Civil Rights legislation of the 1960s, just like all (or at least most) of the Confederate “heritage” people deep down are glad that the US survived. We may be wrong now, but I don’t think we are. The human condition is one of perpetually limited (and usually insufficient) information. We have to make the best decisions we can based on our beliefs and knowledge. As history’s greatest Republican put it, “With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work that we are in.” We’re still doing that. You may disagree with us. You have that right. (Cue President Bush’s quote that started this whole thing.) But 1) “I beseech thee in the bowels of Christ to think it possible that you may be mistaken,” (Oliver Cromwell, since it’s trans-Atlantic week), and 2) please accept that we really are as patriotic and well-intentioned as you are. Maybe some Republicans actually are on the take. I can guarantee you that at least as many Democrats are corrupt. But the majority of both parties’ members are sincere in our beliefs. Cut the ad hominem attacks.
Oh, and in case it wasn’t obvious, my quoting of the previous poster doesn’t mean I accept his assertions. It’s hard to find liberals who are more skeptical of the government than, say, Republican libertarians. Actually, liberals as a whole tend to view the government as a wonderful tool of social engineering (see e.g. War on Poverty). The whole “tax and spend” stereotype was derived from reality. (We Republicans prefer to spend and not tax, a policy which has its own problems.) Still, for the most part, skepticism of the government isn’t correlated to which party one is a member of, so much as it correlates with whether the White House is currently occupied by a member of that party. Nor do I agree that liberals hold more nuanced views than Republicans (that’s not even true on “The West Wing”). To get to that conclusion you have to exclude all liberal activists, who tend to be as devoid of reason and logic as, well, conservative activists. I don’t at all believe that liberals tend to be better independent thinkers than conservatives. My own incredibly profound theory is that most idealists are liberals and most pragmatists are conservatives. I’m an outright cynic, so I vote for the party that is least likely to engage in some beautiful but deeply unrealistic program to solve all the world’s problems, thereby creating new and probably worse problems.
(quote)Americans traveling to England always observe more similarities to our country than differences. I’ve been here only a short time, but I’ve noticed that the tradition of free speech exercised with enthusiasm — is alive and well here in London. We have that at home, too. They
now have that right in Baghdad, as well. (unquote)
Except for labor demonstrations (outlawed, in a society with an approximately 30% employemnt rate).
Except for non-approved mediums of dissemination (Al-Jazeera, al-Arabiya, etc., whch bave been denied entrance and access to occupation and pro-occupation-sanctioned sources).
Except for …(why take up space to list the aray of ‘no-no’s’ the occupying power has announced.
Puh-leeze.
The parallels between the Iraqi resistance and the Mujahadeen (which we actively, if selectively, supported) grow daily.
There already exist ongoing, working, systems set up to deal with societal reclamation and reconstruction after a devastating war, and the U.S. military is not among those.
For the love of whatever ephemeral spirit in the sky you may kowtow to, give those entities who are set up to deal with such situations the opportunity to do so.
Ken sez:
So, there you are. Tell me, at what point did liberals take a pro-america position in a national crisis? on Iraq? 9-11? Vietnam?
So, at what point did Liberals take an ANTI-America position in a national crisis? 9-11? They let the PATRIOT Act pass without incident, until they saw what Bush was using it for. Vietnam? Started by a Democrat, dragged on by a Republican who didn’t know what he was doing…
Iraq? At what point did liberals take up arms in treason against American troops? I missed that. In fact, I missed where any liberal, anywhere, aided and abetted members of the Hussein family and/or Al Qaeda, or even praised any member of the Hussein family and/or Al Qaeda. But then again, you’ll tell me that the 9-11 hijackers were all card-carrying liberals, so your version of the “truth” wins out.
If this is the truth, I’m glad I’m false like the rest of the world…
Dee sez:
Oh and by the way I am neither. I dont conform to any party.
I hate when people do this. Being independent does NOT make you a centrist. I know people who claim to be independent who would fit right at home with the Republican party line as it stands right now. I’ve also seen the opposite: independents who’d make great Democrats. Just because you’re not a Republican or Democrat doesn’t mean your views aren’t slanted one way or another.
Centrism is so rare these days that most of them are VERY unpopular (see Gray Davis). Anyone who claims to be one is either lying or a recluse.
Not wanting to get into the heated debate here because everone’s entitled to their opinion, but I’m republican but I personally do not agree with the current administation and will not be voting for Bush in the next election, I think they’re taking us down a very unwise, if not dangerous path, and definately do not agree with the Patriot act. I may be republican but unlike from what I’ve read here I don’t folow blindly…
Grev says:
Ken sez:So, there you are. Tell me, at what point did liberals take a pro-america position in a national crisis? on Iraq? 9-11? Vietnam?
I am the only Ken that I could find on this page and I did not say this. Check your quotes before posting.
For some reason, most of this thread reminds me of a fierce ping-pong match…
Very enjoyable, despite some pettiness. 🙂
I’d fall under the Independant Concervative lable, but I do enjoy well reasoned arguments from the left (hats off to Luigi Novi; always an enjoyable read. PAD comes off as pretty arrogant and condecending, but to be fair, he gets attacked a lot and probably handles that better than I would.)
This was a while ago, but:
“Us liberals, on the other hand, are more skeptical of authority, of the government.”
This seems diametrically opposed to the truth, since we conservatives are far more skeptical of the government, which is exactly why we don’t want the government involved in very much. People do not need government intervention for hand outs, nor do people require government to give to others. Taxes should support infrastructure and security. It should not offer all sorts of programs with no accountability.
As for the PATRIOT Act, I’ll admit to being uncomfortable with parts of it, BUT, there is no Constitutional provision for privacy. And when you’ve got terrorist cells working as they do, information is your only weapon. I am uncomfortable with parts of it, but I’ll put up with it for the time being.
This is not a popular opinion, but the only way to deal with terrorists is to kill them. You will never get them to change their minds. Ever. It is civilization against savages. Sorry, but the savages have to go.
(quote)This is not a popular opinion, but the only way to deal with terrorists is to kill them. You will never get them to change their minds. Ever. It is civilization against savages. Sorry, but the savages have to go.(unquote)
Sorry, but must respectfully disagree. The exact same quote cited above can be used by either ‘side’ to attempt to justify their actions.
I do not agree with the methodology of ‘terrorists.’ I do not agree with their ideas and motivations.
But terrorism is an ideology (and an extreme manifestation of such), not a genetic pre-disposition. Ideology can be altered, ameliorated, changed and fought against.
De-humanizing any group, though, to justify response and action, is shaky ideology in itself.
For starters, there will always be a new generation coming up, some of whom can and will be molded by such an admittedly twisted ideology.
Risk can, and should be reduced, but it can will never be at zero.
Well, you know, as long as it’s respectful 😉
Some, yes. You’re right, blanket statements rarely, if ever, are true. But the people at the level of Osama and his ilk aren’t going to change. Certainly, programs of re-education should be attempted; goodwill extended, and so on. But so should hunting them down and removing them from the planet.
It’s the fact that they DO feel this way about “us” that makes it a problem.
(quote)But so should hunting them down and removing them from the planet.
It’s the fact that they DO feel this way about “us” that makes it a problem. (unquote)
Spurious argument – that same statement fits equally well in indoctrination in a terrorist camp. (And I am not accusing the poster of being such – just want to have him/her imagine for a moment the seeming validity of the same argument by such an individual.)
Feelings aren’t a crime (yet) – criminal action and criminal intent that violates law are.
Understanding and acting upon the understanding of the motivations and methodology of the ‘enemy’ is valuable. Adopting same as operational policy lessens us.