The Bully Pulpit
All the news that gives you fits. God, I am so ticked off. Mr Bush continues to find ways to infect my life negatively. Some background info is necessary here. I like to time shift--that is I like to record TV programs and watch them at my time as opposed to the time they are on. To this end, TiVo has been a godsend for me. Besides last Thursday (with Bush's bully pulpit crap on his stupid {and I mean that word in every connotation and denotation-but more of that later} social security plan),the only other time my programming was messed up was Mr/ Bush's Bogus adventure.
You remember--the flight suit, the aircraft carrier--the lie "Mission Accomplished"
Nevertheless, usually my TiVo is smart enough to record "Survivor" when it's on Wednesday night, instead of its usual Thursday night slot. However, there was no mention of this bully pulpit crap speech by Mr. Bush in the local Newsday. How was one to know that there was a pre-emption in progress? Was this a state of emergency meeting? No-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-! This was a beleaguered president taking his policy to the American public when his phony and set up town meetings B.S. were not effective. Politeness would have dictated that some notice be given so that those of us who did not want to watch this moron rant, rave and lie could watch something else. Again, those spineless commercial networks (ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, etc.) let this political INFOMERCIAL happen. This was propaganda at its worse, worse than Showtime's cheesy remake of the 1930's Reefer Madness.
Mr. Bush's social security plan will not work for anyone other than his rich banking FRIENDS on Wall Street. His "private account" nonsense will not "fix" social security but rather destroy it and decimate the future incomes of the lower and middle classes who now have some protection under the current social security program. The absolute HUBRIS that Mr. Bush demonstrates continually, along with his blatant disregard for the working masses will soon prove to be his downfall.
I'm ticked off. I missed "Survivor" because my TiVo taped CBS on the 8-9 PM time slot. I missed "Joey" and "Will and Grace" because my TiVo recorded NBC in the 8-9 PM time slot. I left my house at 6AM and returned at 9:55 PM only to find the simpering, whimpering, smirky face of Mr. Bush where I had hoped to be entertained after a hard day's night. There was no justice in this world last November, and there is no justice anymore. This sniviling, pompous ass has now invaded the sanctity of my TiVo box with his unsolicited and unwelcome Bully Pulpit. Will there be no end to this madness? I wish I could program my TiVo NOT to record any speech by Mr. Bush. Now that would be technology that the whole world could use.
posted by Purple Haze @ 5/02/2005 12:56:00 PM
43 Comments:
I am sure Mr. Bush would be very upset that he made you miss such an important TV program. If he only knew I'm sure he would have handled it differently.
The only thing that stops me from from jumping off the GWB is that I would miss another opportunity to hear our prez say Noo-Q-lur.
How did we get here? I thought we deserved so much better than this for all the fine tuning we have done on the process of running a democratic republic. Just about anybody I know would be a better candidate for President. This is guy is the epitome of the fool king and needs all of his propanganda machines running at full tilt.
Sweetime
Don't jump. Great things are happening. Very sorry that you don't see that. One of the very subtle things you are missing is that you are confusing being articulate with being right. Bush is not always articulate, but is doing some great things. Clinton on the other hand was very articulate, but rarely followed through on what he said he was going to do, was influenced by polls rather than on core beliefs, lied over and over again to the American people. Although Clinton did some good things as well, he was also not a person of integrity, nor gave a whit about the truth even when he was chief law enforcment officer of the land.
Bush has done nothing right except pander to it. He has lied more consistently than Bill Clinton ever did. But the problem is not really with Bush, the uninformed, but with his marionette performance for the PNAC. In the name of special interest greed, he has the media, the uninformed lemming masses, and the monetary power to continue this hypocritical charade long enough so the real manipulators can undermine the constitution and press this republic dangerously close to the precipice of facism. He is not even smart enough to realize that he is being duped. He has become a grown version of the lazy, smarmy, chemical hazed, college kid that capitalized on family connections rather than personal talent and character. Bill Clinton, the Rhodes scholar, was unquestionably smarter and more qualified to run this country than George W.Bush. He never would have made the idiotic foray into Iraq. He turned the PNAC down in 98 when they implored him to do it then. As for integrity, I would guess that's a reference to Bill's Oval Office escapade with Monica. The sanctimonious right wing has proven that Bill has not cornered the market on tawdry behavior and ethical malfeasance. I am sick of hearing Hannity reflux, and O'Bile-y reiterate the talking points for a New America. Fear and division are the hallmarks of the leadership in D.C. and those guys are the cheerlearders. Disenfranchise the poor, kill their children in war, and put the senior citizens out on the streets with a tin cup. They don't matter. They're not legacied, entitled, aristocratic, blue, blooded, skull and bones, Connecticut born society so let them eat from dumpsters. Their national conscience resembles a visitation from the ghosts of Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover and Marie Antionette. We have become a dangerously stupid country of the disinterested,lazy and clumsy and the Republicans have identified and cultivated this trait to their advantage. Unfortunately, the Democrats are too naive to see how cleverly opportunistic their adversaries have become. They think an intelligent candidate will overcome but it seems America does't want a smart leader to tell them the truth, they just want to be lied to, simply. We deserve this government. Have an Orange Level day!
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Obviously you can choose to believe what you would like to, but the facts plainly contradict your observations. And as an example in typical Liberal fashion you reiterate something I've heard commentators explain over and over ad naseum to the public...that the American public was angry about Clinton LYING blatantly to us under oath, not that he had only God knows how many affairs. And you know what, Dems will continue to talk about Monica as the reason, because, God forbid you would rightly accuse Clinton. You are philosophizing a great deal and you are very articulate about things, but you have no facts to back anything up. You're right about one thing, Clinton would never have gone into Iraq. Clinton had no core beliefs, that's why. He relied on polls and which way the wind blew that particlar day to decide what to do. That is the most dangerous way to run a country. Too bad you guys don't particularly care that the Iraqi's are free for the first time in their history. Had Clinton still been in office they would still be in the dark ages. And I will have a great Orange alert day, thank you. This however I attribute to the stupidity of Clinton who did absolutely nothing against the threat of terror when he had the opportunity to.
Her's what's up Doc,
I have plenty of facts to support my contentions. Pick one, I'll try and document it to your satisfaction.
In rebuttal, I'll address your final statement regarding Clinton's stupidity re: terrorism. Clinton DID identify the terror problem accurately and conveyed it to the newly elected White House but the Bush administration chose to ignore the intelligence acquired prior to the 9/11 attack. This has been documented. If they chose to ignore it then they were criminal. If they neglected it then they were incompetent.
Either way, these are the people that were elected by a 4 million popular vote majority made up of Fundamentalist Christians turned out by Karl Rove's propaganda machine heard and viewed nationwide on the "liberal media". However, there hasn't been a liberal media influence in this country since Reagan's deregulation of broadcast ownership in the 80's. The opposite has actually occurred hence and now the internet has become the last bastion of free journalistic expression. Unfortunately, for freedom, justice, and participatory democracy, the right wants to try and legislate control of that as well under the guise of protecting us from deviant and prurient sexual influences. That will pass muster in the political heartland because the larger issue of censorship by government is of little interest to the radical right. To succeed actually, they must have that control and they are determined to get it. 1984 as a political concept has a chronological corollary. That period of time was the height of the Reagan push to defang electronic journalism.
1776 was when we were born as a great political entity. 1984 may have been the date of our possibly fatal wound and the death of a free press.
"I am sick of hearing Hannity reflux"
Name one.
Also I know you believe that while Clinton did virtually nothing despite many attacks on our people all over the world which he watched for 8 long...long....long...years. I guess if it makes you feel better...It's all Bushes fault. I prefer to live in reality however.
That's not reality where you live...it appears that you've been "Hannitized" another "ditto-head" marching proudly in support of poistions that are an anathema to most scholars. "Clinton did nothing for 8 years" is just another Hannity talking point. It's not a simple as Hannity, O'Riley, Savage et al would like it to be ...Clinton bad-Bush good. The U.S. policies regarding terrorism and the attacks have much more complex causality than just "Bill didn't do anything about it so that's why we were attacked". I respect informed, fact based, opinion not banter based on beatings of the FOX propagandist war drums.
Please come up with something original or refute me with documented facts. At least go past the surface skin of the propaganda onion.
I'll be busy researching progressive alternatives to the catastrophes we have created so if I don't get back to you right away consider that I am trying to be part of an informed solution.
Why didn't you accept my challenge? You asked me to name something for you to back up and you didn't..or couldn't. You can certainly dish out the talking points as well. I still would like you to defend your claim about Hannity. I find him to be more factual than the rest of the media. Oh Clinton did a great deal in his 8 years, none of it very good. The economy did pretty well. If the talking points Hannity uses are based on truth, you can call it what you like.How about this for facts...refute these:
1993, October-18 Soldiers killed in Somalia. Many cheered as the body of an American was dragged through the streets.
*Response by President Clinton-Ordered our troops home.
1995, November-Five Americans killed and 30 wounded by a car bomb in Saudi Arabia,
*Response by President Clinton-Nothing
1996, June-U.S. Air Force complex bombed in Saudi Arabia. 19 dead, 224 wounded.
*Response by President Clinton-Nothing
1998, November-President Clinton wanted to bomb Iraq but folded when the UN said no. (I guess they didn’t want to jeopardize their take for the oil for food program).
1998, August 7th -U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed. 224 dead, 5,000 wounded.
*Response by President Clinton-Nothing
1998, August 20th -Monica Lewinsky testifies.
*Response by President Clinton-Bombed Afganistan and Sudan. (Don’t worry, there was no damage, except that poor camel)
1998, December 16th -House of Representatives to impeach President Clinton
*Response by President Clinton-Major air strikes against Iraq
1999, April-Impeachment
*Response by President Clinton-End Military Action
1999, October-U.S.S. Cole bombed. 17 dead, 39 wounded.
*Response by President Clinton-Nothing
2001, September 11-Attack on the World Trade Center, Attack on the Pentagon, Flight 93, 3,030 dead.
*Response by President Bush-won the freedom and liberation of 2 countries, captured Sadaam Hussein, killed many leaders of Al-Qaida including Sadaam’s two sons. Hospitals and schools now being built. Elections held in Afganistan and a successful election in Iraq. Women are free to work or attend school. No more mass graves or children in prisons. Iraq once again on the stock market.
We all know by now about the Sudanese offering President Clinton Osama Bin Laden on three separate occasions. The President turned them down all three times.
Some try and fault President Bush for not being more proactive and prepared for 9/11 though he had been in office a mere eight months. The above however chronicles President Clinton’s watch of eight years. It’s time to be intellectually honest about a few things. President Clinton had eight years, knowing full well what people like Bin Laden could do and decided not to act. Yet, if President Clinton knew all this, why did he consistently choose to cut the military and recommend an abolishment of the CIA? There is a ton of evidence out there that strongly suggests that President Clinton made some incredibly wrong decisions regarding our military and our ability to have adequate military intelligence. Let’s face it. Clinton was never pro-military.
yes, Sweetime
Take your sweet time looking for "scholars" that agree with you. You will definitely need it. I'll check back in a couple of months to see if you found anyone.
Copied from Hannity....
1993, October-18 Soldiers killed in Somalia. Many cheered as the body of an American was dragged through the streets.
*Response by President Clinton-Ordered our troops home.
1995, November-Five Americans killed and 30 wounded by a car bomb in Saudi Arabia,
*Response by President Clinton-Nothing
1996, June-U.S. Air Force complex bombed in Saudi Arabia. 19 dead, 224 wounded.
*Response by President Clinton-Nothing
1998, November-President Clinton wanted to bomb Iraq but folded when the UN said no. (I guess they didn’t want to jeopardize their take for the oil for food program).
1998, August 7th -U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed. 224 dead, 5,000 wounded.
*Response by President Clinton-Nothing
1998, August 20th -Monica Lewinsky testifies.
*Response by President Clinton-Bombed Afganistan and Sudan. (Don’t worry, there was no damage, except that poor camel)
1998, December 16th -House of Representatives to impeach President Clinton
*Response by President Clinton-Major air strikes against Iraq
1999, April-Impeachment
*Response by President Clinton-End Military Action
1999, October-U.S.S. Cole bombed. 17 dead, 39 wounded.
*Response by President Clinton-Nothing
2001, September 11-Attack on the World Trade Center, Attack on the Pentagon, Flight 93, 3,030 dead.
*Response by President Bush-won the freedom and liberation of 2 countries, captured Sadaam Hussein, killed many leaders of Al-Qaida including Sadaam’s two sons. Hospitals and schools now being built. Elections held in Afganistan and a successful election in Iraq. Women are free to work or attend school. No more mass graves or children in prisons. Iraq once again on the stock market.
I can't tell you how many times I've seen this chronology...Nice original thoughts Doc.
NOW NOW...LET'S PLAY NICE.
HOW ABOUT WE GET THE BUSH FOLKS TO STOP TALKING ABOUT CLINTON AND FOCUS ON THE FLESH EATING DISEASE WHO SITS IN THE WHITE HOUSE NOW. THE ONE WHO APPARENTLY GIVES OUR EQUINE FRIENDS HAPPY ENDINGS.
ONLY KIDDING.
JUST SOME HORSEPLAY.
FORGET ABOUT CLINTON.HE'S SO YESTERDAY. GEORGE IS THE NEW BLACK.
GET YOUR FOLKS,YOUR FAMILY, YOUR CHILDREN, ALL OF YOU SUPPORTERS OF THIS WAR OF 'LIBERATION'... ENLIST AND GO KILL SOME FULL GROWN FETUSES IN IRAQ. DO IT FOR SAINT GEORGE. THE GREAT LIBERATOR.
THE MAN WHO IS DISEMBOWELING OUR COUNTRY WHILE THE THEO-CONS PRAY FOR MORE.
SO C'MON, FORGET THE BLOW JOB. FORGET THE BUBBLE ECONOMY. FORGET SOMALIA.FORGET THE FANCY HAIRCUT.
LET'S LOOK AT THE MAN WHO HAS MADE MORE BONES IN THE LAST 5 YEARS THAN ALL THE OTHER MONSTERS COMBINED. GEORGE...THE REAL TERRORIST, AND HIS APOLOGISTS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.
WE DON'T NEED FOX TO KNOW WHICH WAY THE WIND BLOWS.
This is a very stupid comment that I'm going to make. I kinda think it was "Cool" for Clinton to get a blow job in the "Oval Oriface". Hey listen, if the President of the United States can't get a BJ every once in a while, who can? (Sorry Doctor...forgive ME!!!)
As they say..."Clinton lied,nobody died".
PHYSICIAN, HEAL THYSELF...
QUOTE FROM THE RED/BLUE MAN:
Dear Quicksand,
Thanks for the comment on my legs. Your comments are too long for the average idiot to comprehend. Remember K.I.S.S.--Keep It Simple Stupid. You want the average Joe to read and understand yer skewed views. I love them--keep on blogging-Purple Haze
MR. MILES,
SADLY, I TOO AM PRO-BLOW.
NOT PROUD, MIND YOU.
THE CHRISTIAN SOLDIERS SHOULD BE PRO-BLOW TOO. HECK, NO FETUSES TO ABORT. COME ON, LET'S HEAR IT !
Gosh--all of this rhetoric concerning the Bush INFOMERCIAL last Thursday the 28th April...
Dr. Pece, if Bush had something substantial to say, I, and many other Americans (read the letters to Newsday & The NY Times on Friday and Saturday. Sunday--4/29, 4/30, 5/1), would not have minded the pre-emption. Here is a person who allegedly espouses freedom of choice yet gives none. Bush’s bogus "Town hall" meetings (where everyone was screened and hand picked, dyed in true blue republican coatings) were a huge failure. Even his followers would not accept his prevarications on his alleged social security reform. So what does he do? He gets on his bully soapbox and forces his failed policies on the prime time networks so many unsuspecting citizens would be tricked into watching him. Given a choice, most Americans would not have watched him. Most Americans see his as a failed presidency and will not accept his SSR as they did his WMD lies. I have to agree with Sweetime, Miles, and Quicksand. No one died from Climton's lies. Yet tens of thousands (American soldiers and innocent Iraqis as well as Iraqi militants) have died under Bush's illegal invasion of Iraq. Under Bush's stewardship the huge surplus of the economy was squandered and Bush has created huge deficits which are now on the backs of our children's children. These are the facts! This is reality! Check out yesterday's Newsday for how Bush is going to destroy the environment by opening up logging roads into the previously protected forests. This is what Bush is about---making money in the here and now for himself and his friends and damning the future generations of Americans to pay the consequences.
I agree that we have the right to disagree but I can't think of one single thing that Bush has done to benefit this country, yet I can name thousands of things that he has done to benefit himself and his cronies. The country is much worse shape on every level and the history books will be classifying him as THE WORST president ever.!!!
I didn't mean that I would be searching for scholars that agree with me. That would be easy and take very little time. The most reputable scholars of political science, history, and economics do agree with most (not all) of my positions. I was referring to personal research that would contribute to solving the catastrophes caused by the narrow minded policies intiated or perpetuated by Bush & Company.
It's one thing to simply lay blame and another to come up with viable solutions. The environment, election reform, non-proliferation, education, hunger, and peace come to mind as worthy examples. Hannity wouldn't know how to address those topics intelligently without blaming Clinton in his preamble.
SWEETIME AND MR. PURPS,
YOU BOTH SAY IT SO WELL AND HONESTLY. THANK YOU BOTH.
A WORD ABOUT THE HONORABLE DOCTOR, OUR FINE FRIEND, ...HERE IS A QUOTE FROM HIS OWN BLOGSITE. IT'S A RESPONSE TO MY MENTIONING THAT I TRY TO KEEP A BALANCE BY READING SUCH THINGS AS THE WALL STREET JOURNAL.
ARE YOU READY? ARE YOU SITTING?
HERE GOES..........
"...the Wall Street Journal..and while they have some conservative stuff in it...it is still primarily left-wing."
7:34 PM, April 04, 2005
THIS IS WHO YOU ARE DEBATING WITH.
ANY COMMENT DOCTOR?
Sorry Violet but Monica was of legal age. She flashed her thong for Mr. Prez. She conspired to save her unwashed blue dress.Sure, Billy Boy did allow his "little head" do the thinking. He is after all, a flawed individual like so many of us are.Sorry, but if Monica was my daughter (heaven forbid!) she's the one I'd have a problem with. I'd love to know the number of Senators and Congressmen have had extramarital affairs in DC. It's more of a public pastime there than baseball.
Dear Violet, I think that this must surely be a FIRST! At least a first in "Blogdom"! I believe you are right. Surely, I believe that having the "Little" head do the thinking is no justification for the actions of Bill Clinton. He should have acted in a responsible manner. He was foolish and did a stupid thing. And I fully agree that he (being the intelligent person we agree he is)should have had the saviness to see that the "pack of wolves" were waiting to tear him apart...and they did. You write very well and are quite persuasive in your writing. keep it up!
VIOLET, YOU ARE CORRECT IN ALL YOU SAY.
I, MYSELF, BELIEVE THAT CLINTON'S BLOW JOB CHANGED THE WORLD.
IT WAS GORE'S VICTORY , WERE IT NOT FOR THE CLINTON SHAME. GORE COULD NOT USE CLINTON'S CURRENCY.
HE KEPT HIM AWAY...FAR AWAY...AND 'LOST'.
THE EDGE THAT CLINTON COULD HAVE PROVIDED WITHOUT THE 'BEHAVIOR' WOULD HAVE CHANGED EVERYTHING.
GORE FOR FOUR. GORE FOR 4 MORE. HOWEVER..............AS INTERESTING AND TRUE AS IT MAY BE, WE HAVE A 'SITUATION' NOW THAT MUST BE DEALT WITH.
WE CAN CLINTON OURSELVES FOREVER, BUT BUSH IS THE ISSUE NOW.
YES, CLINTON GAVE BREATH TO THIS BEAST. BUT IT IS THE BEAST THAT IS NOW THE PROBLEM.
Violet,help me out of this but I'm feeling somewhat depressed. Is there any light at the end of the tunnel? I'm 54 years old and hope to be around for 30 more. Are we condemmed to seeing the type of moron in the "Oval Oriface" be elected again and again? Leading our country down the primrose path to destruction? As a Democrat,I was sick and disheartened at the feeble attempt to take back the White House. I believed in Howard Dean due to a coherent view on this terrible war- he was AGAINST IT! But, Howard Dean showed too much enthusiasm and whooped too loudly, therefore, my fellow Democrats decided to nominate someone who they said was "electible". Didn't they realize that a man without vision is NOT electable?(But what was GW's vision?) Someone say something hopeful to me.
Well, this posting sure got a lot of hits. I wonder how many postings my "Brighteyes" one will get. Thank-you Dr. Pece, Sweetime, Violet, MilesofDavis and Quicksand for responding to this spark.
Violet has suggested to me in the past that when the right can no longer debate their points based on facts rather than propaganda they fold their tents or they resort to juvenile name calling. Is that the case here?
Shall I re-direct Doctor? Which is the party that represents a progressive future, the Reps. or the Dems.? Consider, if you will, the history regarding environment, Constitutional justice, civil equality, or world peace in your response. Please avoid Hannity dittohead talking points unless you can substantiate them with primary source citations or a credible alternative. We here are all beyond the cracker barrel debate stylings that Fox espouses. Although we do not preceed our names with Dr. our acumen is still based on the principles of sound intellectual inquiry. If the current Republican position is worthy of consideration beyond ridicule, then present the rationale. Thanks.
BTW: I did not take my sweetime responding because I needed to find someone who agreed with me. I spent the time finding an environmentally sound solution to the problem of styrofoam in the environment. However the ecomonic policies of the right make the solution unlikely.
The Evil Empire Strikes Back at a landfill near you!
Sweetime
I cannot believe that a person that appears to be so willing to face reality, is so off base on so many issues. Perhaps, too many Democratic talking points? First of all....Sean Hannity has his own show, Rush Limbaugh has his. It is the Rush show where callers identify themselves as ditto-heads, not Sean. It appears than, that you are simply another Liberal, who with the wave of a hand dismisses Conservative views without so much as a thought. You were unable or unwilling to accept my first challenge. How about this, provide me with the website address where you supposedly found Sean Hannity having the same quote as mine. I never said it was an original thought, but I take my reality where I find it. Those were not my original words but I did not get them from Sean. Hmmm....caught again Sweetime?
There is not a cat's whisker of difference between the ditto heads who listen to Limbaugh and the ditto heads who listen to Hannity. I'll give you that there is some variation in the listenership of Michael Savage and possibly even Bob Grant. But Hannity is a Limbaugh dittohead and so in turn are the listeners to both shows regardless of what they call themselves. You're dittoheads by association.
Accordingly, it doesn't matter to me what source your talking points came from. They weren't original and you didn't cite them. Can you? Otherwise that's plagiarism regardless. As for my assertion, sourcing Hannity, every point you raised has been raised on Hannity, Limbaugh, et.al. Nothing unique or original there since they copy each other. The Clinton terrorism chronology was a reduction to the level of simpleton comprehension and, by omission, absurdly innaccurate. However when I consider the actual "source" it is evident that you prefer to quote an "idiotte" who leads fools.
I won't waste anybody's time countering them with left wing talking points.
How about some discussion based on original thought instead, citing sources of inspiration, preferably primary source documentation. Bush and company say and do enough to undermine this country and it's interests every day.
BTW: Violet addressed your other point. I didn't see any need to be redundant. I noticed that you avoided her posts. Too tough to handle?
Sorry Sweetime. I’m not going to allow you to do the Liberal side-step dance again. Let’s take one point at a time, if you are able. You said that what I wrote was exactly quoted by Sean Hannity. Where? Provide your source or admit that you can’t.
I never said what you wrote...
"was exactly quoted by Sean Hannity"
I did say...
"Copied from Hannity" and "I can't tell you how many times I've seen this chronology...Nice original thoughts Doc."
Both statements were meant to point out that your arguments were specious at best. However since you want something akin to a literal reference then drink deeply.
I know for a fact that the timeline viewpoint was presented on Hannity and Colmes in excerpted form by it's supposed author on August 16, 2004 after it had been published as an original piece on April 1, 2004. However this has really been part of an internet chain e-mail since early 2002.
It's so typical of that "idiotte author" to claim credit for someone else's erroneous thoughts.
Now you can admit that you lifted it from (INSERT AUTHOR, TITLE, and DATE, and PLACE of PUBLICATION HERE) . Then we can can examine the credibilty of this source or are you afraid of a veracity test? Otherwise I won't spend another 10 seconds dancing with you on this. You have very little credibility with me at this point. I don't debate dittoheads and the talking points of their ilk. Violet does though. Prove yourself worthy of her, but please be original.
First of all Sweetime the dance began when you, instead of refuting what I wrote told me that I “Copied from Hannity.” I merely asked you where you found it written by Hannity. You cannot do this, yet you and Violet claim that you’ve seen it many times. I guess I should try and be original like you telling me that every fact uttered by a Conservative is just a talking point. Talk about juvenile name calling!Why don't you try and refute one of the statements and cut the dance short.
By the way, which one of your statements is original?
Less than 10 secs... Here is the documentation of the Hannity attribution.
I know for a fact that the timeline viewpoint was presented on Hannity and Colmes, in excerpted form, by it's supposed author on August 16, 2004 after it had been published as an original piece on April 1, 2004. However this has really been part of an internet chain e-mail since early 2002.
It's so typical of that "idiotte author" to claim credit for someone else's erroneous thoughts.
Another Liberal bites the dust.
ok, I'm back after being unable to read or post on this blog for some reason. Doc, I told you when it was on Hannity. I also alluded to who the author was that said it on Hannity. I expect you can confirm who that author was, but will you? I doubt it because you must know that the author of it has no credibility as an authority on much of anything other than spewing right wing bile. I volleyed and the ball of attribution has been returned to your court. It is your turn to tell us where you swiped that half-truth timeline so we can move on to something of substance. I'd like picking the bones of that vulture who believes dividing is better than uniting. You use quotes from the right wing equivalent of Hanoi Jane. However, Jane Fonda at least, has shown remorse for any harm she unwittingly caused. Your author revels in vitriol.
The author was Ann Coulter not Sean Hannity. The only bile I hear is coming from the Democratic party with the “screamer” at the front. The people who are dividing this country are you and your ilk. Even when Clinton was acting the fool, I supported him because he was the President. I had respect for the office, not for him. You keep talking about where I got my information from instead of refuting it. You can’t, that’s why. To Violet, I ask your pardon. Somewhere in Sweetime’s vitriol I thought you had both said that you were sick of the timeline and had seen it over and over. He said it, you didn’t. I stand corrected. This is not a scholarly debate. I took the basic outline, deleted some ideas, rearranged others and rewrote it. At this level it is not plagiarism. I asked for an example of an original statement, which both of you have not addressed. You are so pompous that you demand all original ideas from me, but you can spew Democratic talking points and that is fine. You are living a double standard. You call it Hannity reflux because you disagree with it. Sean Hannity, by the way is not an entertainer. He has a degree in journalism if I am not mistaken and has been involved in talk radio for many years. You would probably prefer the credentials of Al Franken, perhaps? Thank you also to you both for being able to debate the issues without appearing condescending (yeah, right). Maybe if you did some homework and really listen to Sean or Rush for more than a minute or two, perhaps you wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss Conservative ideals. Now be original Jed…you can do it. All you have done is prove that when you are at a loss, you resort to name calling. Many Dems are doing it…..glad you’re original on this point as well.
Ann Coulter has a bizarre sense of humor. I don’t always agree with the humor, but that is what it is. And no, that is not dividing when it’s meant in jest (again, I can totally undersand people not liking her humor and being upset. I don’t excuse it). Excellent quotes Violet but they in fact actually prove my point. I did not say a word about criticism or dissent. What I was talking about is not supporting the president. I know many Republicans who hated Clinton, but supported him and what he was “trying” to do for the country. There were some who did not, of course. Yet, I see the Democratic party obstruct what Bush is trying to do. They are angry that much of the country actually supports Bush. That my friend is too darn bad. I’m tired of hearing Bush bashing…not dissent Violet, but Bush bashing. You know Violet, you have such a typical Liberal mindset that I don’t think you are really willing to dialogue. You pick on things that I think if you thought them through you would realize what I mean instead of what you think I mean. When I say I supported Clinton even though I didn’t agree with him on many issues does not make me Un-American. I was not talking about life and death issues for instance. The President has information that the American people are not privy to, and so when I in a foreign country for instance, and they were bad mouthing Clinton I stood up for him as an American citizen. I don’t think Liberal travelers in foreign countries do the same for Bush.
Sweetime could not refute that chronology. He kept bringing up where I got it from. I notice that you are doing the same thing.
Violet…I’m sorry that y ou could not accept my apology as it stands. It was authentic and your inability to accept it tells me more about you than it does me.
The words that I took from an article of Ann Coulter is a primary source because she wrote it. If a student had handed it in to me at the University I would have told them to cite it. All the things we write or say especially about politics are not original. As an example I asked you to provide me with an “original thought.” I’m still waiting. What statement did I make about Clinton that you refuted?
Violet….you sound so educated and then you say some things that are bizarre.
Explain how Sean Hannity is pro-choice. He is not (unless you define entertainer to be different than the normal definition) an entertainer. You say you’ve been on Hannity.com and that may be true, but I can tell that you don’t listen to him very often. I have never heard Sean disconnect anyone. He does most of his research himself. Here it is again. You talk about someone, about externals…but not about what they say.
Listening to Sean or Rush does not dictate how I will think about something in particular. I’ve disagreed with both on occasion.
Sean attacked Clinton for 9/11 because he is not exempt from what happened. There are many people to blame and I’ve heard Sean say Bush should have been more pro-active. That is not reflux, it is his opinion about the issue.
Violet....in the last post I explained that I don't always agree with the humor of Ann Coulter. But she is not an official of the Republican party. How about these quotes from Dean who is the head of the DNC. Do you think these quotes are divisie. Now these are humorous, but not intended to be so.
("You think the Republican National Committee could get this many people of color in a single room?" Only if they had hotel staff in here." Howard Dean )
("I hate Republicans and everything they stand for." Howard Dean )
Republicans "all behave the same, and they all look the same. ... It's pretty much a white Christian party. "
Please provide me some proof that Ann Coulter actually said those things
Hey guys, do yo think Star Wars is really a leftist attack on The Reagan and Bush(s) Administrations? Many young and old Americans do. Why not shift gears and get on the Star Wars wagon and we can exchange opinions on more than just the "bully pulpit" There's a whole world of ideas out there just waiting t be blogged.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Violet
It is a very busy time of year for me so I would appreciate your patience as I do what needs to be done. I will get back to you on these issues. Just a quick comment for you to think about. I'm not sure at times where you're coming from and that perhaps is a good thing. For instance you keep talking about Hannity. You raised some good points, however I've heard him say just the opposite many times about abortion. Just briefly...if he in fact did say what he did with Donohue than in my opinion he is wrong. A child conceived in rape is no less wanted because of the manner in which they were conceived than under normal loving circumstances. You seem to want to say, that because I believe Hannity is wrong on this one issue it somehow discredits his integrity. I don't always agree with my wife...somehow that makes it all the better. I don't listen to Hannity because I agree with him, but because I am getting information that I don't hear on CBS, or Air American as examples. Also, for your information...I am still checking into this. Those quotes by Ann Coulter were obviously horrible and I do not agree with them under any circumstance.I am checking into other sources for these quotes...you would think there would be more of an outcry don't you think. I read Ann's column and have heard her speak many times...never has she said anything that bizarre in my hearing. Now to Dean.....As I've said before, he is the head of a national party...many more people hear his words than someone like Coulter. His words are also mean and divisive. I was just looking at the context of the Hannity quotes....are they reliable?
At any rate...when I can...I will offer you my humble opinion on some of the other comments you've made....
By the way....You said that you accepted my apology, yet you question my authenticity....not very nice Violet...I was only giving you the context of how I made my error. I don't consider it a true acceptance of my apology with a questioning of my authenticity. May I offer a comparison. You offered an apology for typos (unnecessary as it was)...I accept your apology...although it would have been more authentic if you didn't try to pin your errors on your family...(this is a joke...please take it in that light if you are able...otherwise I will have to offer another apology which somehow I think you would object to in some fashion)
Last one for a while....I'm finding it difficult to believe that while I spend a decent amount of time on both Liberal and Conservative sites that I missed these small items. As I said before, I will look into them. And don't forget, on the site with the transcript it gives a disclaimer about accuracy. Now, you again make different rules for you and different rules for me. I think that what was said by Sweetime was vitriol. I simply called him on it, as you state you would.
O.K. BREAK IT UP...MOVE ON....
SO I GET AN E-MAIL FROM THE GREAT PURPLEATOR TODAY. HE SUGGESTS THAT I REVISIT THE BLOG. MY, HOW TIME PASSES.
ANYWAY, I TRIED TO READ THE COMMENTS...OR WAS THAT WAR AND PEACE? MAN, I STARTED DROWNING IN WORDS. C'MON, I HAVE A LIMITED LIFE EXPECTANCY.
MAMMALS SURE CAN SHUCK AND JIVE, CAN'T WE?
DOCTOR...I HAVE MISSED YOU SO. I HOPE YOU HAVE A VOID IN YOUR HEART FOR LIL' ME.
I WOULD LIKE TO CHALLENGE YOU TO A DUEL. NO, NO, NOT WITH WEAPONS, SILLY.THAT'S TOO 'HARDBALL'.
NO, RATHER WITH WORDS. YOU AND I COULD SET UP A PUBLIC DEBATE. WE COULD DO IT AT THE HIGH SCHOOL IN THE FALL OR ANY OTHER VENUE THAT SUITS YOU. WE COULD USE THE NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSE HERE IN SETAUKET OR ANY OTHER PLACE YOU MIGHT PREFER. JUST YOU AND ME. YOU CAN HAVE GOD IN YOUR CORNER AND I'LL HAVE MY MEAGER BRAIN. WE CAN DO IT AS A FUND RAISER WHICH WE CAN DONATE TO OUR FAVORITE CHARITIES.
LET'S SEE IF YOUR ABLE AND WILLING TO TAKE THAT HEFTY SHOW ON THE ROAD. TO BE FAIR, I'M IN TRAINING.
I WELCOME A 'YES'. I WOULD BE DISSAPOINTED WITH A 'NO'.
PLEASE, NO SMARMY INSULTS.
THANK YOU AND GOOD LUCK
AND , OF COURSE...MAY THE BEST...
HECK...YOU KNOW THE ROUTINE.
Post a Comment
<< Home