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
• 
I’ve always thought that American politics would be much improved if our legislators followed the British model of confrontational debate. It would at least be more entertaining.
I’m glad someone else caught his “slip”…
I would give my life savings if i could actually be there if i could be there if the Opposition went at him…
Ra!
I wish Wubja would get brought down for a so many reasons. And I often wonder if the people who voted for him would again vote for him if they knew that when you call the GOP to donate..the call is taken in India? Or in 19 states right now if you call for social security, unemployment and what not..you’re again calling India to check on this. Yes, the call centers are in India. Our tax dollars at work. Nothing against India or it’s people but I think their are a few million unemployed people here who would love to punch a number into a box on a screen and read the output to someone. 🙂
omg, is that true? I didn’t know that… that’s disgusting… Ya know, the more i see of our government, the more disgusted and ashamed i become…
Ra!
Well, the story about the state social programs was run on CNN.com about three months ago. But you know with the Scott Peterson and Cobe Bryant cases making such headlines ..and the Iraq death tolls. I guess quite a few people missed it. 🙁
So by the logic your going by now – you’d just adore a bunch of crazed fans yelling at you, and you having to come up with a defence on the fly?
Just a week ago you condemed this kind of stuff from an angry and possibly violent fan. What you just described sounds very much like the stuff that “fan” wanted to do to you: confront you, yell at you, and do it so you can’t defend yourself on-the-fly.
Orrrr…. is this one of those situations where it’s a double standard. You like it to happen to people you don’t like – but don’t like it when it’s about you.
Plus – if America is so “Anti-Free-Speech” why are you able to get up on this blog and denounce Bush? Hummmmm…. Could it be we still, stopped, living in the land of the Free?
Oh, didn’t have cable at the time. Doesn’t make it any better, so I’ll just add it to my list of things that this country has done to make me ashamed of being an American. Ya know, that would have been the perfect job for all the telemarketers who are getting laid off now too… shame…
Ra!
I believe that President Bush was speaking of the freedom to speak out against something freely. You know, unlike Iraq under the rule of Saddam.
With this continued talk of “Ashcroft America”, can someone point out an specific example where someone’s freedom of speech and/or expression has been quashed? Any example, other than speaking about Christanity or Judaism?
And if you want to see people yelling and screaming and calling Bush all kinds of names, just watch any of the democrats running for president…or better yet, their debates.
Sorry, post i didn’t see before I responded before…
Well, aren’t Q&A’s generally unrehearsed? I know i’ve asked random questions before… besides, i think there is a bit of difference between a reckless blundering idiot threatening you and a politician saying what they want to say how they want to say… rather than having to make sure it pleases bloody everyone…
Ra!
Just another case of making something out of nothing. Sigh.
heres an idea
after the elections are over, the new president should turn Bush over to the United Nations for War Crimes Trials…
now before you immediately say “no, no, no”…
He invaded a sovereign nation against the vote of the united nations, lied to his own people about doing it, and falsified evidence to do it.
Sounds like a good idea to me, and probably the best way to apologize to the rest of the world.
>> With this continued talk of “Ashcroft America”, can someone point out an specific example where someone’s freedom of speech and/or expression has been quashed?
Well, when President Bush came and gave a speech here in Pittsburgh in 2002, a 65-year-old man was arrested — let me repeat, actually arrested — because he politely insisted that the police had no right to confine him and other sign-carrying protesters to a fenced-in area while people carrying pro-Bush signs were allowed to walk freely around the street. Please don’t take my word for it: Read the news story at http://www.post-gazette.com/localnews/20021101protester3.asp for yourself.
We can at least sigh in relief that the judge threw the case out upon hearing the facts, upon which both the defendant and the arresting police officer agreed. Still, I find it a bit unsettling to read that it was the Secret Service who’d ordered the local police to proactively keep the protesters confined behind a fence in the first place. The right of assembly isn’t selectively dependent on partisan views, folks.
Surges: So by the logic your going by now – you’d just adore a bunch of crazed fans yelling at you, and you having to come up with a defence on the fly? Just a week ago you condemed this kind of stuff from an angry and possibly violent fan.
Luigi Novi: No, he condemned threats from such people. Not confrontational debate. In addition, Peter is not an elected official who must answer to 290 million Americans for his actions as leader.
Surges: What you just described sounds very much like the stuff that “fan” wanted to do to you: confront you, yell at you, and do it so you can’t defend yourself on-the-fly.
Luigi Novi: If you subscribe to intellectual relativism, saying that “this thing” is the same as “that thing,” and so forth, then yeah, the two things “sound alike.” If, on the other hand, you agree to recognize the important distinctions, you’ll admit that in that earlier blog thread, Peter was not talking about confrontational debates or questions toward an President by those he leads, but vague, veiled threats by a fan. Not the same thing.
Surges: Plus – if America is so “Anti-Free-Speech” why are you able to get up on this blog and denounce Bush? Hummmmm…. Could it be we still, stopped, living in the land of the Free?
Luigi Novi: A fallacious argument. The fact that Peter has a blog does not mean that there aren’t others in this country who have suffered under Bush and Ashcroft’s Patriot Act. Who is targeted by this Act will tend to be dictated by a combination of happenstance and fame. To name some examples from Dude, Where’s My Country? by Michael Moore:
In May 2002, six French journalists were stopped at LAX, interrogated, subject to body searches, detained for more than a day, and expelled from the U.S., having been denied travel to their intended destination, a video game trade show.
Vermont high school current-events teacher Tom Treece was removed from his position after a uniformed police officer entered his classroom at 1:30am to photograph a student art project depicting George W. Bush with duct tape over mouth with the caption, “Put your duct tape to good use. Shut your mouth.”
North Carolina college student A.J. Brown was questioned by Secret Service agents regarding her possession of anti-death-penalty posters showing Bush and a group of lynched bodies with the caption “We hang on your every word” which were seen as “anti-Amercian” material.
North Carolina Green Party activist Doug Stuber was detained and questioned while trying to fly to Prague, told no Greens were allowed to fly that day, had his mug shot taken, and forced to turn back because, according to a Justice Department document shown to him by his interrogators, Greens were likely terrorists.
Your argument, therefore, that free speech is not coming under attack because Peter is able to denounce Bush on this blog, is a fallacy.
He’s peddling that line over there in the UK? He tried that here in Oz only to watch Senator Bob Brown get thrown out for protesting while he was talking about something or other.
>> Just a week ago you condemed this kind of stuff from an angry and possibly violent fan. What you just described sounds very much like the stuff that “fan” wanted to do to you: confront you, yell at you, and do it so you can’t defend yourself on-the-fly.
Peter David is a private citizen who makes his living by writing fiction that consumers buy and read. He is gracious enough, but in no way obligated, to interact with his fans.
George Bush is an elected public official whose tremendous authority and power is sanctioned (via the Constitution) by the will of the American citizenry, as expressed through their chosen state electors. He chose to seek the office of the President — to accept a federal government job in which he is officially employed by the American people. And, if I may borrow the words of a certain well-proven patriot, with great power (over the American people) comes great responsibility (to the American people).
To wit: Peter David is not answerable to the public for his views. The President of the United States most certainly is.
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. Also, I for one don’t want to hear a bunch of people yell at each other and exchange name calling. What does that accomplish? I thought the best debate in the last presidential election was the Liberman-Cheyney debate. Very straight forward and well articulated views on policy.
Oh, regarding a prior statement saying Bush invaded a soveriegn nation without UN approval, you forget that Saddam invaded a sovereign nation and for that act was placed under restricitions by the UN, which Saddam broke continuously. 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. President Bill Clinton stated many times at the end of his presidency that Saddam was becoming an increasing danger and that the US would eventually have to involve itself militarily. The fact that that the UN would not enforce its own restictions showed how inept(and some would argue corrupt regarding the food for oil program) the UN has become. Speaking of sovereignty, the US needs to look out for itself, not let third world leaders in the UN dictate to us how to defend ourselves. The fight is in Iraq right now, and if it weren’t there it would be in our streets.
Last thought, I don’t think it is right that we allow ourselves to go after the enemy, but we tell Israel to play nice, and not be too agressive in going after their attackers. That does seem hypocritical.
“Oh, regarding a prior statement saying Bush invaded a soveriegn nation without UN approval, you forget that Saddam invaded a sovereign nation and for that act was placed under restricitions by the UN, which Saddam broke continuously.”
Since when do two wrongs make a right?
Ra!
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?
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, but given the facts, I guess that’s all you can do.
Your argument, therefore, that free speech is not coming under attack because Peter is able to denounce Bush on this blog, is a fallacy.
Quoting Michael Moore, as though facts were a priority for him, is a fallacy.
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.
Oh, look! Evidence of a Saddam/Al-Quaida link. How about that?
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp
Oh, look! Evidence of a Saddam/Al-Quaida link. How about that?
That’s old news, the Pentagon has already debunked it:
http://www.mediainfo.com/editorandpublisher/headlines/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=2030480
Note that GWB’s original schedule called for an address to the entire Parliament assembled, which was cancelled shortly before his arrival, supposedly due to the prospect of his being ‘commented’ at from the gallery. The mild (in comparison) heckling he received when he addressed the Australian legislature not long ago apparently got the admin’s hackles up.
As for the article in the Weekly Standard, that is entirely regurgitated, carefully cherry-picked material, most from a year (or more) ago, unverified by intelligence agencies at the time, and unverified by those agencies since:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2003_11_16.html#002219
It has not been widely picked-up on, primarily because it is truly ‘old news’ and old news that has been thoroughly debunked, unverified or is otherwise unsubstantiated and questionable in fact or in source.
The rash of detentions of folks of Middle Eastern extraction, without recourse to lawyers, whisked to undisclosed detention, with no proof evident nor offered of any wrongdoing (alleged, anticipated or proven) in so many cases (thankfully at least reported well after the fact in many instances) is but one troublesome example of ‘Ashcroft’s America.’ There are literally scores of other cases, many of which have been reported on reputable news sites available to anyone who cares to go looking for the information.
Framnkly, the reason so many of the powers and authorities given to intelligence and law-enforcement agencies by the PATRIOT Act were stripped from those same agencies and auuhtorities years before is because those agencies had been proven to have abused those powers. They will do so again; there is simply no ‘if’ about it.
Totally off-topic:
Not reported other than in select venues, and perhaps in a later graf on the jump page in some newspapers, but the currretly in-debate Medicare drug bill includes a proviso expressly forbidding, by law, the Secretary of HHS from negotiating lower drug prices with drug manufacturers:
http://www.swtimes.com/archive/2003/November/18/news/medicare_bill.html
Let’s have some fun, Eric. I’m going to change two words throughout part of your statement, and let’s see if you still feel the same way:
This hatred of Clinton is so petty. You know what hurts republicans is that when it comes to choosing between legitamate critiques of administration policy in a mature rational manner or a personal attack accusing Clinton of being satan himself who wants to poison the water, starve children, and trip little old ladies, the republicans always choose the personal attack. Also, I for one don’t want to hear a bunch of people yell at each other and exchange name calling. What does that accomplish?
Well?
JSM
Jeff? You’re point? I agree both are reprehensible. I don’t want either of them to be subjected to such trash.
‘S’funny, I heard Bush’s rejoinder to the moron reporter and thought it was a perfect response. If 50,000 protestors hated Saddam in Iraq before the war, there would be 50,000 dead protestors. It IS great to be in a country where that doesn’t happen. Talk about putting the proper light on things.
“He invaded a sovereign nation against the vote of the united nations, lied to his own people about doing it, and falsified evidence to do it.”
We’re a sovereign nation, the UN was wrong in not siding with us, hampered as it was by biased member nations more interested in their own agenda than in World Peace.
He didn’t lie about going to war with Iraq. I knew, why didn’t you?
There is a difference between erroneous evidence and falsified evidence. And it’s sad that people don’t comprehend that culling useful information from the mountains of data collected is an art not a science. To crucify him for not acting on a scrap of info about 9/11, then complain when he acts on something that appears just as dangerous is just plain ridiculous.
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).
As for Bush’s remark about free speech, it’s not the first time he’s said it. It’s his standard press conference rebuttal to any question regarding even the hint of opposition to his policies, and it’s almost always said with a sarcastic, smirking tone and accompanying body language designed to convey the exact opposite meaning to the words. If he actually celebrated free speech he wouldn’t have all these “sterile zone” and “free speech zone” bubbles around him practically at all times. He reminds me of Frank Miller’s and Dave Gibbons’ portrayal of the president in the Martha Washington books – the first time you see him he’s in a relatively sane-looking motorcade, then as the story progresses and he keeps being re-elected or just outright does away with the electoral process, every inaugural parade gets more and more militarized and armored-car bubble-like. Bush only needed three years to go from the relative openness of the previous administration to living within a fortress, utterly unanswerable to We the People. As with Orwell’s 1984, Miller’s work is supposed to be SATIRE, not a blueprint.
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, but given the facts, I guess that’s all you can do.
Wow, what a nice dismissive little insult there. Did you get that from O’Reilly or Hannity?
The fact is that the Bush administration is doing its best to try and sweep protesters under the rug. Even the so-called “liberal media” is rare to report on their tactics.
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.
Ah, I see. So your logic here is that since other things have been done wrong in the past, we should just roll over and accept wrong things now?
We’ll just forget about how on 9/12, Ashcroft was on TV practically boasting about how he was going to be able to push through many measures in what would be called “The Patriot Act” that had been struck down time and time again as being unconstitutional.
About the USA PATRIOT Act, I wonder how many people realize it’s an ackronym and not a word, as most print media present it. The full name is the United and Stengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act. It should be referred to as the PATRIOT Act or the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act, so people will know it’s a marginally clever ackronym and not the word “Patriot” with all that it implies.
On another note, in a book about M*A*S*H, the late Larry Linville talked about the Frank Burnses of the world and warned that people like that shouldn’t be elected to important positions or promoted to important jobs in the business world because they don’t “get it.” Their lack of understanding– and to some degree intelligence– make them dangerous. Unfortunately, we now have a real life Frank Burns in the White House. The question is whether the president is letting himself be influenced by bad advice from his staff and/or various cronies; or whether he is ignoring good advice from said staff in favor of what Spock described as “Cowboy diplomacy.” Let’s hope that in 2005, the next president can restore some of the respect we’ve lost in the international community.
Rick
Wow, what an incredibly narrow and slanted view most of you have.
By 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).
This is an incredibly biased opinion, not based in reality or fact.
By Scott Bland:We’ll just forget about how on 9/12, Ashcroft was on TV practically boasting about how he was going to be able to push through many measures in what would be called “The Patriot Act” that had been struck down time and time again as being unconstitutional.
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. Your calling his actions boastful is you transferring your personal opinions about him, not what really happened.
Too many of you let your personal biases and opinions interfere with truth and reality to the point that your perception of what is happening can’t be trusted.
I ain’t touching any of this with a ten-foot pole. With one exception…
C-SPAN could probably start charging people money if they broadcasted Bush speaking to Congress, and congress loudly and uneloquently speaking back, ala the Parliament deal. I certainly would fork over some cash for that kind of real reality television.
Too many of you let your personal biases and opinions interfere with truth and reality to the point that your perception of what is happening can’t be trusted
I would hesitantly use the word truth in a public forum. Facts and truth are two different things.
Truth depends on an inner conviction instead of facts. Facts depend on facts.
Travis
Truth depends on an inner conviction instead of facts.
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.
You know, I’m going to make this short. I’ve always been a fan of PADs writing and wit, and I will continue to be a fan of his writing and wit. But I have to say that I’ve been coming to this site more and more infrequently, because it has seemed to have morphed into mostly an outlet to decry the president and the GOP, and seems to be much more just a liberal forum not for bashing of conservative ideals, particularly of this administration. While I understand that PAD is more than entitled to his own opinions (as is everybody) the effect of all this is simply to drive me away. There is so much hostility and radicalism in the way that Bush and the GOP is being attacked here. I’m not here to say that anyone is wrong, I’m just saying it’s getting to be a real drag coming here and seeing everyone argue about this stuff. It also, quite honestly, makes me see PAD in a different light and it is not exactly one that is positive. I understand that this is PADs site and he can say anything he wants, but I am just saying that with the decidedly political turn this site has taken, it has ceased to become a “fun” place to visit.
Ken spewed: “Too many of you let your personal biases and opinions interfere with truth and reality to the point that your perception of what is happening can’t be trusted. “
It, it’s Bush, Ashcroft and their fellow dirtbags that are interfering with truth and reality. They are weakening the very freedoms this country was founded on. Hëll, Bush was “elected” in 2000, I though every 20 years a president had a shot taken at him… (Reagan first elected in 1980 survived the attempt on his life [and amazingly John Hinkley is complaining he’s not crazy anymore and needs more freedom…, JFK had won his election in the 1960 elections, too bad he didn’t survive…)
The “Patriot Act” is unpoatriotic and does NOTHING to protect America, just like the attack on Iraq does nothing to protect America, and in fact weakens it by wasting vast quantities of American troops and now tons of money as well…
The only thing Ashcroft is concerned about is his own insane power grab….
Gee Matt, can’t stand seeing others opinions and learning the truth about your idol Bush?
Gee “Bladestar” (by the way, what an incredibly witty name! You must be so proud!), funny you would say that. First, never did it say Bush was my idol…but so nice of you to put words in my mouth! And you know, why in the world would I call the environment hostile with response like yours? Crazy me!
So by the logic your going by now – you’d just adore a bunch of crazed fans yelling at you, and you having to come up with a defence on the fly?
I’ve been in any number of forums just like that, ranging from workshops to Q&A’s to the occasional debate (you may have heard about it) to back in my sales manager days when I would host fan and/or retailer and/or distributor talk-back sessions and have to defend a variety of unpopular Marvel corporate decisions to irate customers of all stripes. Did I *adore* it? No. But it certainly was challenging and it was part of the job.
Just a week ago you condemed this kind of stuff from an angry and possibly violent fan. What you just described sounds very much like the stuff that “fan” wanted to do to you: confront you, yell at you, and do it so you can’t defend yourself on-the-fly.
Well, yeah, it sounds like it if you can’t read. My opining that having angry opponents openly challenging George W. Bush in Parliament because it would be fascinating to see him desperately try to match their articulateness is one thing. And if I added, “And I hope one of them hauls off and belts him or knocks him over,” then you might have a point. But I didn’t. So you don’t. And since you bring it up twice: What’s wrong with having to defend one’s opinions on the fly? If those opinions are capable of–when instituted–sending 150,000 people to war and destroying thousands of lives, shouldn’t one have thought them through enough to be able to defend them off the cuff in a heated challenging forum? If not, then either the opinions should be rethought, or the person who has them should be rethought.
Orrrr…. is this one of those situations where it’s a double standard. You like it to happen to people you don’t like – but don’t like it when it’s about you.
No, this is one of those situations where someone is deliberately distorting the clear intent of what I said and comparing two wildly different circumstances in order to make it *look* as if I have a double standard.
Plus – if America is so “Anti-Free-Speech” why are you able to get up on this blog and denounce Bush? Hummmmm…. Could it be we still, stopped, living in the land of the Free?
Would you care to tell me where in the quote, “Or is that an intriguing Freudian slip as to how he views the Ashcroft America in which we currently reside?” states that we’ve stopped living in the land of the Free? (Although the Patriot Act is certainly a challenge to it.) Now as I *have* said in the past, all Americans are in favor of free speech…for themselves. It’s supporting free speech for others on which a sizable percentage of our citizens falls down.
PAD
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.
Tom Treece, the Vermont Teacher investigated by Barre Police for a “student art project” and “removed from his position” was neither. A single cop, did ask for and received permission to photograph a project, but Mr. Treece was investigated by local school officals for presenting a disruptive and one-sided view of american politics in his current studies class. He stamped “Impeach Bush” stickers to his classroom door and rather than removed from his position, was directed by his department head to teach history classes rather than current events.
N. C. College student A.J. Brown was investigated by Secret Service agents for an anti -death penalty poster, which according to the report, they found “was nothing”. Ms. Brown reportedly co-operated fully with the Secret Service.
Doug Stuber, former Chair of the 2000 Green Party Nader Campaign may or may not have been stopped from flying to Prauge, but in any case, the story has been reported without co-cobberation and is Mr. Stuber’s personal report. What we do know is that Mr. Stuber, former NC Green Treasurer, was removed from his position by the Greens themselves for checking “irregulatities” and has been denounced as any kind of Gren spokesperson.
There’s four sides to every story, your, mine, the truth and Michael Moore’s.
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.
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.
Travis
There’s four sides to every story, your, mine, the truth and Michael Moore’s.
Make that five. Ann Coulter should be in there somewhere…
Travis
I still don’t see a Freudian slip. He said it’s nice to be in a free country, not that his (ours) isn’t.
“If he actually celebrated free speech he wouldn’t have all these “sterile zone” and “free speech zone” bubbles around him practically at all times.”
I’m not really sure what you mean by this. I think the fact that Pres. Bush goes out in public at all is incredibly brave. With the bile spewed his way regularly the potential for violence seems high. Yet he does go out in public.
I don’t see arrogance and sarcasm in his tone or body language at all. I don’t see how anyone could.
Travis, it seems like you need to read a dictionary because you have truth mixed up with opinion.
The things you listed may be believed to be the truth but they are not the truth. Whether believed or not. It maybe some peoples opinion that is the truth, but that is their opinion.
See, as I have stated the dictionary defines truth to be a fact. That is the bottom line.
What someone believes is not going to change the fact that GW Bush is a very educated man. It is an opinion of some that he is an idiot. That is not truth, it is opinion.
Travis,
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.
KR
Wow, what an incredibly narrow and slanted view most of you have.
Right, because so many extreme conservatives are renowned for their broadmindedness.
By 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).
This is an incredibly biased opinion, not based in reality or fact.
The Onion did a piece a while ago which had a liberal putting forward opinions and the conservative responding with quick, dismissive brush-offs. Just like that one. The humor reflecting reality is almost as funny as the notion that *anyone* has an opinion that’s *not* biased.
And elsewhere…
But I have to say that I’ve been coming to this site more and more infrequently, because it has seemed to have morphed into mostly an outlet to decry the president and the GOP, and seems to be much more just a liberal forum not for bashing of conservative ideals, particularly of this administration…I understand that this is PADs site and he can say anything he wants, but I am just saying that with the decidedly political turn this site has taken, it has ceased to become a “fun” place to visit.
It’s not a “liberal forum.” It’s my forum at which I allow both liberals and conservatives to voice their opinions. Furthermore, your post mystifies me for two reasons: First, the number of blog entries I make regarding Bush and the GOP are a small fraction of the total. “Mostly?” Averaging out to once a month or so, if that. I’m not counting the responses I make to those who both agree and disagree, but that brings me to my second point: If you see that my entry in my blog for that day is regarding politics or a subject that you wish to avoid…you don’t have to read the responses if they’re that upsetting to you. I mean, hëll, how many people pick up a newspaper and read *every single thing*. Local, national, foreign, obits, editorials, letters to the editor, lifestyle, sports, TV, religion, advice columns, and every word contained therein.
If the debate bothers you, it’s because you’re letting it bother you. Now if that prompts you to stop coming to this board altogether, fine. But it seems to me that you’re doing so not because the discussion bothers you–since you could easily avoid it–but rather because I have opinions with which you disagree and you’re increasingly having trouble getting past that in order to read the vast majority of blog entries that are wholly apolitical. Which says far more about you than me.
PAD
Peter,
I am a conservative, and while extreme anything is by definition, rarely broadminded, I consider myself to be so.
I have found conservatives (at least of note) to be far less guilty of “brush-offs” than liberals in their response to insightful commentary.
In debating points of political fact, I frequently find myself responded to with charges of racism, bigotry, ingorance or simple lack of knowledge by those who would take a more left-wing position.
That having been said, you’re still a darn fine writer, if a hair politically misguided. 🙂
luke said:
heres an idea
after the elections are over, the new president should turn Bush over to the United Nations for War Crimes Trials…
now before you immediately say “no, no, no”…
He invaded a sovereign nation against the vote of the united nations . . .
If that’s such a good idea, lets put Bill Clinton on trial, too. Because last I checked there was no U.N. resolution authorizing the war in Bosnia, which was also a sovereign nation.
The Definition of Truth Dictionary.com
Look at definition numero dos.
A statement proven to be or accepted as true.
I think the operative word here is accepted. If it’s proven, I definitely agree. But accepted? Nope. Not necessarily. One guy, a long time ago, was beheaded because he went against what was truth at that time. But then again, maybe the earth IS the center of the universe.
And I am not getting into an argument over this. All I’m saying is that races and countries have been wiped out over something called truth.
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.
I will quote her.
Everyone says liberals love America, too. No, they don’t
She can bite me. I’m a liberal, and I love America.
Second of All, Franken is a comic. He’s a political comic, but he’s a comic. Take him for what he’s worth.
Want to read a funny, but very poignant populist book? Read “All that’s in the middle of the road is yellow lines and dead armodillos.” I know I misspelled that last word. It’s by Jim Hightower. And it’s worth reading.
Travis
the conservative responding with quick, dismissive brush-offs. Just like that one.
Sure, it may have been quick and dismissive, but her statements are very narrowminded and she is stereotyping a whole group based on her opinion. She may feel that the anger pointed at the President is justified but for the most part many liberals do tend to exprress their anger in non-justifiable wording.
I agree with you that all of us base our opinions on some amount of bias, but there should be some amount of objectivety to offset the incredible amount of bias that so many use to base their opinion.
Travis,
You just don’t get it.
Your talking philosophy and opinion, I am talking reality.
Just to re-iterate, I already said what definition of truth I was using so as to remove your confusion, yet you still want to use a different definition. I can’t help past that.
This is fun stuff to read all the very different opions. Some of you are very funny writers. At least I hope some of you are trying to be funny.
Either way, this blog is alway a good read, especially this kind of topic. Love to see what both extremes see going on.
Travis,
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?
Show me a example please, or Ms. Coulter’s comment will stand as accurate and uncorrected.
KR
Finding misstatements and lies from Ann Coulter is like finding bluster from John Byrne — just throw a rock and you’ll hit a dozen examples.
Aside from the well-researched examples from Al Franken (and, as far as I know, no one has managed to find any mistakes/lies in Fanken’s latest book), just hop over to http://www.spinsanity.com/ and search for “Coulter” and read away. Make sure you allocate several hours, though…