'Exiled Saudi Dissident' and other fairy tales

Any statement made by an enemy of the United States is news— and apparently so is what the ‘exiled Saudi
dissident’
(Osama Bin Laden) says… I wonder what kind of world the AP lives in?

Also, what color is the sky in the Democrats world? Did Hillary Clinton really just eviscerate Bush for failing to act unilaterally? I love it! How delicious.

Is it possible that Democrats and the left, (in which I include the Associated Press as a wholly owned subsidiary of the vast left-wing conspiracy), are truly confused? There seems to be little coherence in the babbling that comes out of many quarters of the left. 

The AP routinely labels Palestinian terrorists as 'victims' of their own suicide bombings, ostensibly blaming Israel for Palestinian deaths when the bombs they carry explode. But this latest redefinition pretty much takes the cake. It goes way beyond the obsessive compulsive 'neutrality' disorder that so pervasively and perversely affects the press.

Exiled Saudi dissident Osama bin Laden is seen in this April 1998 file photo... news.yahoo.com/photo

I suggest that the AP purge all the deadwood from their employee rolls. Any boob that cannot refrain from finding a completely inappropriate euphemism for Osama Bin Laden does not deserve to be working for a news organization. (Euphemisms I would have accepted include: 'dead man walking', or 'elusive prey', or something along those lines.)

To be fair, the AP is not much better than the Chairman of the Democratic Party himself, hereafter to be referred to as 'Chairman of the Bored'. It's as though the left has a perverse bias problem that creates some sort of friend-or-foe confusion.

For instance, Howard Dean said he couldn't say whether Osama was guilty or not-- until after he had been captured and had a fair trial:

"I've resisted pronouncing a sentence before guilt is found," Dean said in the interview. "I will have this old-fashioned notion that even with people like Osama, who is very likely to be found guilty, we should do our best not to, in positions of executive power, not to prejudge jury trials." Dean added he is certain most Americans agree with that sentiment. cnn
Which brings me to the confusion of Democrats on how to deal with rogue nations. 

Is Hillary Clinton confused? 

In a speech at Princeton University, Mrs. Clinton, a New York Democrat, joined the Bush administration's call for sanctions against Iran, and also said that the threat of military action against nuclear sites should not be ruled out.

...'I believe that we lost critical time in dealing with Iran because the White House chose to downplay the threats [emphasis mine] and to outsource the negotiations,' Ms. Clinton said, according to a transcript of the speech published by The Daily Princetonian. 'I don't believe you face threats like Iran or North Korea by outsourcing it to others and standing on the sidelines.' (completely biased) nytimes

I'm wondering if Hillary didn't get the memo. You see, the talking points for the last three years have been that Bush's failure is due to his failure to act multilaterally against Iraq, uh, that is, totally without the support and participation of the rest of the world-- and further-- that Bush has been using *FEAR* (evil Jedi mind tricks) to justify his unilateral actions. Don't take my word for it:

What gives? Hillary says Bush hasn't played up the fear of Iran enough! She is, in effect, demanding more fear mongering! This is in contrast to the entire left-wing of the Democratic party. In fact, complaints that fears of Al Qaeda (you know, the guys who have actually attacked us, as we are reminded in debates about Iraq) are greatly exaggerated are ubiquitous on the left.

So is Hillary stepping off into 'Senator Palpatine' mode? Should we be worried that her progressive credentials are in peril? Is she actually a Sith lord in disguise, plotting to take over the Republic and become Empress Darth Screech? i.e. Perhaps she should re-register as a Republican?

Seems like a fateful blow to 'John Kerry' multilateralism to me. You'd think that Bush would be praised for going the John Kerry diplomatic-multilateral-fully-involved-ally route. But perhaps that is the real objective of Hillary's speech, to put herself to the right of John Kerry for the Democratic nomination for President in 2008. After two elections I think the smart money would wise up and know that no democrat is going to win the Presidency on a McGovern/Kerry platform. But to do it by advocating using the politics of fear... I thought we were just supposed to be friends?

One of the other ways the Administration has tried to control the flow of information is by consistently resorting to the language and politics of fear in order to short-circuit the debate and drive its agenda forward without regard to the evidence or the public interest.

...Fear drives out reason. Fear suppresses the politics of discourse and opens the door to the politics of destruction. Justice Brandeis once wrote: 'Men feared witches and burnt women.' Al Gore

(Is it just me or does this quote just scream to be read in your best Yoda impression warning Luke Skywalker to beware of the darkside?)

The left continuously scolds the right and the Bush administration for cynically using the 'politics of fear'.

Yet, it is increasingly apparent that the climate of fear promoted by the Bush Administration in the wake of a series of national traumas is having wide effect. It seems clear that the politics of fear and safety has been underestimated by progressives and pundits. This political message likely had more impact on the Democratic losses and Republican gains in the recent elections than the widespread sense that the Democrats had no message.

According to George Lakoff, a UC Berkeley University cognitive scientist and author of "Moral Politics," the anxiety-provoking anti-terrorism actions and messages of fear of the Bush administration fall into the category of the "strict father" mode of communication. progressive news aggregate web site: alter-net.org

A history lesson

What we need is a little history lesson about which side(s) Democrats have been on about Iraq. 

The sad truth is that the Democratic party has tried to have it both ways. When they looked at public opinion at the time they calculated that to vote against the war would be political suicide. They got up and pompously made the same kind of hawkish comments as Hillary is now, demanding action against Saddam. Hence even John Kerry, who voted against the first gulf war, (which ostensibly had all the conditions he set out for being a proper use of force), voted for this one against his own judgment. Democrats publicly agreed with the President and voted for the war but then began undermining it almost immediately. Soon accusing Bush of being a dictator, silencing dissent, and castigated him for their own votes. 

Democrats refuse to take responsibility for their speeches or their votes. They seem to want to forget these demands for action, after that action has been taken.

If Democrats like Hillary really wanted anyone to continue to believe anything they said, then they should be worried about the tactics they have been using that have done nothing but divide America and increase the partisan rancor during a time of war.

Posted by Eric Simonson at January 20, 2006 12:53 AM
Comments
Comment #114813

Eric using broad-brush Conservative talking points (who wrote the memo) to criticize the opposition. Few facts, much inuendo, flat out lies, loads of assumptions, and the everpresent Conservative party name calling. Nothing new here.

ZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzz… Snore! ZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzz…

Posted by: LibRick at January 20, 2006 1:02 AM
Comment #114820

To get the nomination Hildabeast has to cater to the far left, in doing so she loses any chance of winning in the general election.

Posted by: Beagle at January 20, 2006 2:36 AM
Comment #114821

Eric Simonson:

Explain to me again how Osama Bin Ladin being free and alive makes America safer? You seem to have forgotten that little tidbit in your little Rant of Pointlessness.

Posted by: Aldous at January 20, 2006 3:21 AM
Comment #114826

THis is a bit off the subject but I felt needed to be said. Give a man a fish—feed him for a day—(Democrat). Teach a man to fish feed him for life (Republican) Another issue the dems the party of the working man the poor. Why did the Dems vote to tax social security and then have al gore cast the desiding vote to raise the tax on social security to 85%. Yes the Dems the party of the working man. A Joke.

Posted by: Thomas at January 20, 2006 4:48 AM
Comment #114837

You know what the joke is? He is a Exiled Saudi Dissident. And an al-Qaeda head, and a militant. Did you bother to look at the rest of the slideshow? No. Exiled Saudi Dissident was one of a number of labels used, probably because a)You don’t have to spoonfeed the fact that Bin Laden was and is a terrorist. I think people know that by now

and

b)Using Synonyms is a writers way of breaking the tedium.

You? You jump to the conclusion that they’re trying to minimize Bin Laden as a threat, so the first fact that seems to support that gets snapped up by you, because you know already what it means, or at least you think you do.

You snap up Deans comment to mean that he thinks Bin Laden isn’t culpable and responsible for the attacks. Wrong again, he’s simply expressing a Democratic principle that even the worst criminal must be proven guilty, rather than assumed so by our system. The idea is, of course that Bin Laden will be an easy guy to convict.

You snap up Hillary’s comments to mean she’s hypocritical, when what she’s saying is that we shouldn’t, as the folks whose interest has been to keep Iran non-nuclear, have been uninvolved in keeping things non-nuclear there.

Fact is, you are a microcosm for this administration, in that you are more keen on getting an emotional effect and gaining legitimacy for your party’s actions, than you are in getting the facts straight.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 20, 2006 8:05 AM
Comment #114845

Stephen:

I’d agree with you on your comments about Howard Dean. I’ve been outspoken in the concept of “innocent until proven guilty’, and I don’t think Dean is advocating that OBL is innocent. I certainly hope he isn’t doing that, and I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on that. Since OBL has admitted to his actions against the US, I think its safe to say that a trial would be a technicality, but nonetheless, part of what makes our system of justice better than the rest of the world’s.

As far as Hillary’s comments are concerned, she is being hypocritical. The US has not stood on the sidelines, but rather has allowed other governments to take the lead. For Democratic leaders to complain about unilateralism in one case, and multilateralism in another similar case is hypocritical.

There will always be question of how to best negotiate. Sometimes a hard line is the best tactic while other times a conciliatory tone is best. You never know until the end, and even then you sometimes don’t know.

There are those out there who will complain regardless of what the action is, and Hillary has done precisely that in this instance. What’s worse is that many of them will wait until the action is taken to complain. That saves them the trouble of being proactive, which might force them to agree with the taken action.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at January 20, 2006 9:08 AM
Comment #114848

Thomas,

Give a man a fish—feed him for a day—(Democrat). Teach a man to fish feed him for life (Republican)

Teach a man to fish and he’ll sit in a boat all day and drink beer…

Teach a man to create an artificial shortage of fish, and he’ll eat steak!

But perhaps these are more appropriate to a political discussion:

(Democrat) Take a fish from one man and give it to another. Don’t worry about where the fish came from.

(Republican) Let the private sector own the lake, so the executives can keep all the fish, and make the fishermen eat rice. It’ll be more efficient that way.

(Green) Look at what you’re doing to the lake!

(Libertarian) The government shouldn’t be in the business of teaching anything. Let each person figure out how to fish for themselves.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at January 20, 2006 9:33 AM
Comment #114855

(Democrat)Limit how many fish each person gets, what size, what season, so that the fish don’t run out. Then let people do what they want within those laws.

The right label for your statement is (socialist). The two are not synonymous.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 20, 2006 10:10 AM
Comment #114856

“You snap up Deans comment to mean that he thinks Bin Laden isn’t culpable and responsible for the attacks. Wrong again, he’s simply expressing a Democratic principle that even the worst criminal must be proven guilty, rather than assumed so by our system”

So why doesn’t this “Democratic principle,” apply to the right and Bush?

Posted by: kctim at January 20, 2006 10:11 AM
Comment #114861

kctim:

Actually, that democatic principal doesn’t apply to Bush OR Bin Laden, and for the exact same reason: both have publicly admitted (CONFESSED) their role in the respective crimes. Bush has just had the gall to try to justify it by saying that it was covered under the authorization to use force even though his administration previously sought and was denied a seperate authorization to use war powers on american soil, which he would not have needed to seek if his administration truly believed it was covered by the existing authorization to use force.

Dean’s actually kind of an idiot if he doesn’t know by now that Osama’s already publicly confessed and thereby waived the presumption of innocence. But so is anyone who thinks Bush hasn’t, or that his actions were really justified by the authorization to use force.

Posted by: Jarandhel at January 20, 2006 10:30 AM
Comment #114862

(Democrat) Punish the fisherman who gets up early and learns to fish faster and more productively by taking from him and giving to the fisherman who hasn’t even put a pole in the water.

(Republican) Catch as much fish as possible before someone comes to confiscate it.

Moral of the story— Go fishing, have a beer and enjoy the day, There’s always a Ruth Cris’s Steak house on the way home.

Posted by: Scott at January 20, 2006 10:31 AM
Comment #114863
So why doesn’t this “Democratic principle,” apply to the right and Bush?

It applies to him, too. But you’ll note that the principle is “innocent until proven guilty”, not “smart until proven stupid”. ;-)

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at January 20, 2006 10:31 AM
Comment #114866

(Democrat) We should give free fish to the poor, the sick, the children, and ME!

(Republicans) Give everyone one day’s lesson in fishing. After that, if they can’t feed themselves, let’em beg or starve. The fish doesn’t get a second chance, so why should you?

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at January 20, 2006 10:37 AM
Comment #114868

(Democrat)Limit how many fish each person gets [make govt create and enforce laws that say he and his family have less by forcing him to give the fish to those who refuse to fish], what size, what season, so that the fish don’t run out. Then let people do what they want within those laws. [Laws created thousands of miles away, by politicians who have no idea at all about what the proper size or season are]
[create a govt agency to do the fishing for the people, let the people become dependent on the govt to eat so that they are more willing to live their lives as you think they should and to help ensure that those who work hard are no better off than those who refuse to work]

This is pretty fun. The back and forth on this would be interesting.

Posted by: kctim at January 20, 2006 10:43 AM
Comment #114871

Stephen, excellent reply to this article.

kctim:
“So why doesn’t this “Democratic principle,” apply to the right and Bush?”

IMO, the number of obvious criminal motives, and a preponderance of evidence that no one ever chooses to look into.

Re: Fish

(Republican) Tell the people you’re compassionate over their need for fish, then make sure that those who have the biggest boats are able to drive everybody but themselves off the lake. Whereupon, they get out the big nets.

(Democrats - last fifteen years) Tell the people you intend to: “Limit how many fish each person gets, what size, what season, so that the fish don’t run out. Then let people do what they want within those laws.” But then not work hard enough to make sure this actually happens.

Posted by: Adrienne at January 20, 2006 10:45 AM
Comment #114872

kctim,

I agree it’s fun. But, to keep it serious, maybe we should debate this one:

(America) Give fish to those who are unable to fish, while encouraging better fishing from those who are able. Keep the water clean, so the fish are still worth eating. And look for new lakes, in case this one runs out of fish.

Your thoughts?

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at January 20, 2006 10:49 AM
Comment #114873

Jar
“that democatic principal doesn’t apply to Bush OR Bin Laden, and for the exact same reason: both have publicly admitted (CONFESSED) their role in the respective crimes”

It is a court of law (I would guess the SC) that determines if it was or was not a “crime?”
If the ruling by the court of it being a crime has come out, I missed it.

Posted by: kctim at January 20, 2006 10:52 AM
Comment #114878

RC

(America) Give the fishermen the choice on what to do with “their” fish.
Protect the source, but not at the expense of the people.
Always be searching for new and better resources.

Posted by: kctim at January 20, 2006 11:07 AM
Comment #114879

kctim:

Actually, no… it is a court of law which determines if guilt can be *proven*, and determines which law takes precidence in the case of conflicting laws. Statue determines whether or not it was a crime, and there is no gray area there. It was.

Posted by: Jarandhel at January 20, 2006 11:07 AM
Comment #114881

How many Democratic/Republican fish does it take to screw in a light bulb…

Posted by: Rocky at January 20, 2006 11:21 AM
Comment #114883

Adrienne
How “obvious” is it, if only half the people see it?

A “preponderance” of evidence based on absolutes, would run its course and justice would be served.
A “preponderance” of evidence based on assumptions, hopes and opinions, only leads to more of the same.

Until the evidence based on assumptions, hopes and opinions is proven and becomes an absolute, it is not fair to assign guilt.

Posted by: kctim at January 20, 2006 11:29 AM
Comment #114884

Eric Simonson, or the real editor of this post:

Are you compensated for the posting of these articles?

I have to wonder given your consistent adherence to the GOP talking points that the rest of the right wing main stream media goose step with…

Rob Cottrell,

Great list, especially your (America) one.

Posted by: Dave at January 20, 2006 11:32 AM
Comment #114885
As far as Hillary’s comments are concerned, she is being hypocritical. The US has not stood on the sidelines, but rather has allowed other governments to take the lead.

No. Until early 2005, the Bush administration wasn’t engaged in stopping Iran’s nuclear program at all. President Bush periodically made impotent threats, but nothing ever came from it. It wasn’t until Dr. Rice became Secretary of State the the Bush administration got off the sidelines,

You know, I do think that in — when I first went to Europe, I found that somehow we’d gotten into a position where it was the United States that was the problem in the Iranian situation, and so you actually had a strange situation in which the Iranians — in which the Europeans were trying to broker between the United States and Iran. That was not a good place to be.

And so through that trip and then the President’s trip to Europe and then my return trip to Europe, we worked hard to come to a common position so that we could leave Iran effectively no way out except to go through the EU-3 talks.

Senator Clinton’s absolutely correct, the Bush administration downplayed the threat of Iran and North Korea to keep the Iraq operation on track. And Eric, Clinton wasn’t advocating unilateral action; she was advocating action. Period.

Posted by: American Pundit at January 20, 2006 11:33 AM
Comment #114894

kctim:
“How “obvious” is it, if only half the people see it?”

Memo — “Bin Laden determined to strike in US”, president on vacation the entire month of August, 2001.
Tried to block 9/11 commision.
No WMD’s, No war strategy. Nine billion of our taxdollars missing.
Downing Street Memo.
Vice President’s Energy Policy — secret.
Tom Delay
David Savavian
Jack Abramoff — admission of guilt.
Novak, Miller, Cooper, Woodward — Libby, Rove. Others?
Brownie
etc. etc.

If the half the people aren’t seeing, it’s because they’ve chosen to close their eyes very tightly.

“Until the evidence based on assumptions, hopes and opinions is proven and becomes an absolute, it is not fair to assign guilt.”

Though they tried to block it, the 9/11 commision got to go forward — plenty of guilt was exposed. The commision issued a report card recently — more guilt was exposed.
Unoffical hearings over Downing Street Memo, conducted by Democrats — because the Congressional majority would allow no offical hearings to go forward.
Today Democrats are once again being forced to conduct unofficial hearings dealing with the Abramoff scandal — again because no official hearing was deemed necessary.

Like I said Tim, numerous criminal motives of an obvious nature, and a preponderance of evidence that no one ever chooses to look into.

Posted by: Adrienne at January 20, 2006 11:59 AM
Comment #114895

Why does she want action NOW?
Why can’t we just impose sanctions for 12 years or so, let them do whatever they want and THEN decide what we should do?
We ignored Iraq throughout the 90s, I think we should just ignore Iran now.
Come on now, they SAY they only want nuclear technology for energy purposes. If Saddams word is good enough, Irans word is good enough.
Its not Iran the world should be worried about, its America.
We’re an evil, Christian nation and want to rule the world.

Posted by: kctim at January 20, 2006 12:01 PM
Comment #114904

Adrienne
“Memo — “Bin Laden determined to strike in US”, president on vacation the entire month of August, 2001”

He was determined to stike us even before August. Does the memo say, “bin Laden determined to strike in US” on 9-11? Did Bush say he would just take care of it on the 10th? No.

“Tried to block 9/11 commision”
Yeah. Something fishy there, IMO.
You know of Sibel Edmonds?

No WMD’s- But according to US and other country’s intel, there was.

No war strategy- Superb war strategy. Miscalculated post-war strategy. Bush is president and the miscalculation is on him.

Downing Street Memo- Smoking gun? Ended up meaning nothing.

“Vice President’s Energy Policy — secret.
Tom Delay
David Savavian
Jack Abramoff — admission of guilt.
Novak, Miller, Cooper, Woodward — Libby, Rove. Others?
Brownie”

All just “politics as usual.”
Its sad, but the people have just become accustomed to this type of behavior and ignore it. It does our country no service to do this either.
Reno, Lippo, Chung etc… all got the same reaction from the people.

Cold, hard facts with no room for questions is about the only thing the people will listen to anymore.
Anything less and its back to ER.

Posted by: kctim at January 20, 2006 12:37 PM
Comment #114911

Empress Darth Screech!!!!!

Bwahahahahahahahaha!!!

Thank you for making me laugh until my sides hurt!!

Posted by: Wayne at January 20, 2006 1:19 PM
Comment #114917
Why can’t we just impose sanctions for 12 years or so, let them do whatever they want and THEN decide what we should do? We ignored Iraq throughout the 90s, I think we should just ignore Iran now.

12 years of sanctions does NOT equal ignoring Iraq! Those 12 years of sanctions, and the accompanying inspections, got rid of at least 85% of Saddam’s WMDs and delivery systems. Remember, Bush invaded to find the remaining 15%, which Saddam claimed didn’t exist. That’s one point the war hawks have conveniently forgotten.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at January 20, 2006 1:38 PM
Comment #114921

kctim,

(America) Give the fishermen the choice on what to do with “their” fish.

Should I take from this that you want all taxes to be voluntary? Because I’d love to have the choice to redirect some of my money that’s going to our behemoth of a military.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at January 20, 2006 1:57 PM
Comment #114929

(classical liberal) Give everyone a fishing pole and equal access to the lake. Do with your catch what you want. Keep the lifeline of the lake alive by keeping it well stocked and clean.

(new-liberal)First, rid the lake of all “Jesus fish”. No need for fishing poles, a few will do the fishing for you. Give one fish to the state for every 3 caught. What they do with it, nobody knows.

(conservative) Catch all the fish you can, by any means possible, even if it means the destruction and decimation of the lake. Then look for new lakes to decimate.

(neo-cons) Take control of the lake. Stock it with an overabundance of “Jesus fish”. Only allow those who are worthy to partake in the lifeblood of the lake. All others can go to hell!

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at January 20, 2006 2:09 PM
Comment #114930

Rob,

I’d love to have the choice to redirect some of my money that’s going to our behemoth of a military.

Don’t spend it elseware, just spend it more responsibly. The military is a bureaucracy that wastes money like any other government agency. It’s funding shouldn’t be cut, just better spent.

Posted by: TheTraveler at January 20, 2006 2:18 PM
Comment #114932

(Republicans) Take bribes from a lobbyist for the fishing industry.

(Democrats) Take bribes from “associates” of the lobbyist and pretend not to be involved.

Posted by: TheTraveler at January 20, 2006 2:26 PM
Comment #114946

RC
“Should I take from this that you want all taxes to be voluntary?”

Those taxes not outlined by the Constitution should be done away with. They are unConstitutional.

“Because I’d love to have the choice to redirect some of my money that’s going to our behemoth of a military”

Common defense of the US is done by our military.

Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years

To provide and maintain a navy

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces

Now, if we would have stayed true to the Constitution, you wouldn’t be needing to redirect your money away from causes you don’t believe in.
How your money is used would be your choice.

Posted by: kctim at January 20, 2006 3:49 PM
Comment #114958

Jaran
“Statue determines whether or not it was a crime, and there is no gray area there. It was.”

Thanks, very interesting.
Why is this even an issue then? If there is no gray area and it can be proven that Bush committed a crime, shouldn’t he be put on trial?

Posted by: kctim at January 20, 2006 4:31 PM
Comment #114965

kctim:

Simple; because in our legal system there needs to be someone willing to prosecute. In the case of the president, that someone would have to be the House. One or more parties would need to bring up charges on the floor, it would probably need to survive comittee, then there would be a vote on whether to accept the charges in whole, accept the charges in part, or reject them in whole. All of that, before a trial could even begin. And, far from an impartial grand jury, the House is full of people who (for better or worse) have aligned their political careers with that of Bush.

Just like when Janet Reno was AG and declined to prosecute Oregon doctors who used Federally regulated drugs to assist suicide, that doesn’t mean that no crime had been comitted by the doctors. Federal statue at the time clearly required doctors to prescribe medications only for a “legitimate medical purpose”. Under Ashcroft, prosecutions resumed. It was eventually decided by a court that the federal government could not overrule the state government about what constituted a legitimate medical purpose, but again this was a ruling on which of conflicting laws took precidence, not a ruling on whether or not a crime had been comitted.

This all comes down to a debate over whether or not Bush should be prosecuted for the actions he has admitted to, not a debate over guilt or innocence. The man has already admitted to breaking the law, what really remains now is seeing if anyone in a position to prosecute is willing to do so.

Posted by: Jarandhel at January 20, 2006 4:56 PM
Comment #114968

You know, I was trying to correct the misconception about how most Democrats think, but it seems there are some who want to tell we Democrats how we really think. Gee, thanks, you learn something new every day.

Speak for yourselves, fellows. Quit trying to tell the Democrats what they think. It’s just propaganda for your own side’s sake anyways.

kctim-
If the constitution is telling us congress has the power to do something, I generally think that means they have the power to collect taxes as they see fit through legislation. As far as income tax goes, please remember that we do have a constitutional amendment to that effect (The Sixteenth: The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 20, 2006 4:59 PM
Comment #114971

Jarandhel
Again, thank you.
I really was not aware that Bush said he committed a crime, been really busy here at work.
The last I had heard was that he said he had authorization and that it would be the courts who decided if he did or did not.

Posted by: kctim at January 20, 2006 5:07 PM
Comment #114973

kctim,

I agree that we’ve drifted far from what is Constitutional, but consider this…

Did you ever notice that the Constitution doesn’t allow for an Air Force??!! But, guess what? We have one anyway! Are you opposed to your money being spent on that?

What about the Interstate Highway System? Congress is allowed to maintain postal roads, but most of our post goes by air nowadays. So should we stop spending your money on the Interstate Highway System, too?

The unfortunate fact is that these things aren’t unconstitutional… they’re just loosely constitutional. The “interstate commerce” clause allows the Federal government to do a LOT of things that weren’t originally intended.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at January 20, 2006 5:12 PM
Comment #114977

kctim:

Again, thank you. I really was not aware that Bush said he committed a crime, been really busy here at work. The last I had heard was that he said he had authorization and that it would be the courts who decided if he did or did not.

Bush said he gave authorization for warantless wiretaps on american citizens. That, by definition, is a crime according to the FISA statues. Bush claims that the authorization to use force against Al Queda that he recieved from congress gave him the power to do this, even though normal law would not. You’re right he has said that a court would have to decide if it did or not. However, the fact of the matter is that his administration seperately sought the authority of congress to do just this sort of thing, and was DENIED it. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/22/AR2005122202119.html

No reasonable court could possibly find that he had, or even thought he had, authorization to do this sort of thing if he specifically asked for it in addition to the authorizations he already had and was explicitly denied it.

Posted by: Jarandhel at January 20, 2006 5:30 PM
Comment #114978

SD
I know the nanny state arguments and I’m sure you have heard the “natural right” a million times.
I just happen to believe in a natural right to “enjoy all the fruits of one’s own labor.”

I’m curious for your input on something though:
If the govt can steal the peoples money and use it as they see fit, then why even bother with saying income tax is voluntary?

“Speak for yourselves, fellows. Quit trying to tell the Democrats what they think. It’s just propaganda for your own side’s sake anyways”

Read any Dem posts on here lately?
Anybody who disagrees with them are evil God fearing racists who want to create a theocracy and take over the world in the name of Christianity.
Talk about propaganda used to scare up votes.

Posted by: kctim at January 20, 2006 5:32 PM
Comment #115004

kctim-
Theft? There’s a constitutional amendment that says they can do it! This is a nation run by the rule of law, and the laws have been passed.

And no, they can’t use it as they see fit, we’re the final arbiters of that, so long as we show up and ask them the questions that need to be asked.

I don’t recall saying that the income tax is voluntary. It’s mandatory. But I do recall saying that it is a product of our Democracy.

As for your remarks about Dem posts, you offer hackneyed distortions of our positions in lieu of the genuine article.

Maybe you just don’t see it. Maybe you’re so biased against us that you can’t wrap your head around the shear moderateness that our positions tend to have. Maybe you have to believe that we’re radicals, so you can justify the extent to which you support other radicals. After all, if we’re just normal human beings, and not fire-breathing gremlins out to destroy, then you might have to compromise and perhaps vote for an occasional Democrat.

This is the trap that those on the right, regardless of party affiliation, have fallen into. Having become convinced of a radical leftist plot to undermine the nation, they formed a wall of self-perpetuating propaganda, which has served to do two things: present Right-wingers with a majority for the last ten years, and ensure that this majority would descend into corruption, as they spent more time beating up on the liberals than looking up on their conservatives.

If you actually read what we write, and take it at face value, rather than attribute dark motives to it, you will see that we are a lot more relaxed than the dark phantoms that haunt right-wing nightmares, and a much more willing to talk, when folks are willing to discuss things in kind.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 20, 2006 8:42 PM
Comment #115010

Eric Simonson

The Democratic leadership and the leading Democratic Senators and House members (Kennedy, Durbin, Reid, Leahy, Boxer, Schummer, Pelosi, and so on) are really model leaders of our government. I also need to define “model”. A model is a small replica of the real thing.

Posted by: tomh at January 20, 2006 9:42 PM
Comment #115017

A Model approach to dialogue, I see.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 20, 2006 10:30 PM
Comment #115026
The Democratic leadership and the leading Democratic Senators and House members (Kennedy, Durbin, Reid, Leahy, Boxer, Schummer, Pelosi, and so on) are really model leaders of our government. I also need to define “model”. A model is a small replica of the real thing.

tomh

Small replicas of who? The big, bad, corrupt Republicans?

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at January 20, 2006 11:56 PM
Comment #115296

This post is yet another example (ableit a ludicrous one) of the growing paranoia of the extreme wrong wing. If the press isn’t biased in your favor, then you think it must be biased against you. Quick, look over your shoulder!

Posted by: ElliottBay at January 21, 2006 8:47 PM
Comment #115410

Dave, or whoever you really are…

Eric Simonson, or the real editor of this post:

Are you compensated for the posting of these articles?

I have to wonder given your consistent adherence to the GOP talking points that the rest of the right wing main stream media goose step with…

Is that an offer or an accusation?

Posted by: esimonson at January 22, 2006 2:20 AM
Comment #115414

Stephen,

b) Using Synonyms is a writers way of breaking the tedium.

I see. And here I thought journalism was about reporting the news in as straightforward and objective a manner as possible. My Bad.

But that also raises another question for me… Does the term tedium aptly describe the job description of today’s journalist? Do they use that in the recruiting flyers at liberal universities?

You? You jump to the conclusion that they’re trying to minimize Bin Laden as a threat, so the first fact that seems to support that gets snapped up by you, because you know already what it means, or at least you think you do.

Maybe I should have included the dozens of other examples of AP bias as well. It is definitely a pattern.

You snap up Deans comment to mean that he thinks Bin Laden isn’t culpable and responsible for the attacks. Wrong again, he’s simply expressing a Democratic principle that even the worst criminal must be proven guilty, rather than assumed so by our system. The idea is, of course that Bin Laden will be an easy guy to convict.

“The idea is, of course that Bin Laden will be an easy guy to convict.” — I don’t get that at all. In fact, that’s the opposite of the way the quote sounds. Dean’s comments are notable precisely because they highlight the naked backwardness of thought in terms of what justice is and how war is prosecuted. An act of war is not met with an indictment per se. And above all not to be subject to the full panoply of trial lawyer tricks to get the guy off.

Would Osama be convicted? Hmmm. Good question. I’m sure his defence attorney would file for a change of venue, asserting that he can’t get a fair trial in the US. Maybe in Berkeley California, but not in the US.

It’s not as though I quoted some off-the-wall radical-leftist who doesn’t represent mainstream democrats, in fact, as Dean is the Chairman of the DNC, I quoted an off-the-wall radical-leftist who does represent mainstream democrats! What a hoot.

You snap up Hillary’s comments to mean she’s hypocritical, when what she’s saying is that we shouldn’t, as the folks whose interest has been to keep Iran non-nuclear, have been uninvolved in keeping things non-nuclear there.

Fact is, you are a microcosm for this administration, in that you are more keen on getting an emotional effect and gaining legitimacy for your party’s actions, than you are in getting the facts straight.

The point is that Democrats have put their foot in their mouths. Just what kind of unilateral action is he supposed to take that Democrats and the Left have said are entirely inappropriate?

We have a rogue nation pursuing nuclear arms for the stated purpose of wiping Israel off the map. But we have no proof! How do we know that they will nuke Israel or any of their neighbors? Iran hasn’t invaded any country. They haven’t been under sanctions for WMD.

Posted by: esimonson at January 22, 2006 2:40 AM
Comment #115832

SD
“I don’t recall saying that the income tax is voluntary. It’s mandatory. But I do recall saying that it is a product of our Democracy”

I was only looking for your opinion about why the forms say it is voluntary. I did not say you had said that.

“As for your remarks about Dem posts, you offer hackneyed distortions of our positions in lieu of the genuine article”

As the left does with the right.

“Maybe you just don’t see it. Maybe you’re so biased against us that you can’t wrap your head around the shear moderateness that our positions tend to have.”

There is nothing moderate about liberalism.

“Maybe you have to believe that we’re radicals, so you can justify the extent to which you support other radicals.”

Its radicals now huh?

“After all, if we’re just normal human beings, and not fire-breathing gremlins out to destroy, then you might have to compromise and perhaps vote for an occasional Democrat”

I vote for the candidate, not the party and I have voted for a Dem many times.

You mentioned how the right thinks they know what lefties are thinking and I said its a two way street. The left, yourself included by your posts, think you know how the right thinks.
Whose right?
The “only one side is right” way of thinking or the “both sides are guilty” way of thinking?
I’ll go with the both sides argument and keep voting for the person. You guys can keep the holier than thou attitude and vote for the party.
Nothing anyone says will change your minds anyway.

Posted by: kctim at January 23, 2006 9:36 AM
Comment #116261
Dave, or whoever you really are…

Eric Simonson, or the real editor of this post:
Are you compensated for the posting of these articles?

I have to wonder given your consistent adherence to the GOP talking points that the rest of the right wing main stream media goose step with…


Is that an offer or an accusation?


Posted by esimonson at January 22, 2006 02:20 AM

It’s a simple question.

Signed,
Dave (really my name)
I wasn’t sure if you would actually be willing to use your real name, given the questionable nature of your posts. E.g. like Gannon.

Posted by: Dave at January 24, 2006 12:58 PM
Comment #116510

Rock on, brother.

Posted by: Ry at January 25, 2006 12:11 AM
Comment #117584

Eric Simonson,
Speaking of bias… I was very impressed in the way in which you clearly demonstrated your bias throughout your article.

I don’t know.. I kind of always assumed that the articles would speak for themselves with a bit of editoralizing afterwards to set the tone. Not a clealy laid out plan of what was said, how it should be interpreted and why you thought it was wrong.

Please all… I understand this is a Blog and I understand the purpose of a Blog and a person submitting an article. I am just discussing the degree of influece the poster tried to use to “make his point.”

For example, was Senator Clinton (The only politician I would intentionally use a familiar name with would be old “Tip” O’Neal who has long since passed. Avoiding a respectful use of title and name can lead to a sign of “bias” which then opens up the door to others using name calling instead of proper debate. Civility I believe it used to be called.) suggesting President Bush unilaterally attack Iran? Can we, as a nation, impose economic sanctions? Was she suggesting something more than tossing it into the hands of the UN?

There are shades… I know this is hard for some people to understand… but the world is not black and white. Disagreements between nations isn’t agree or war. Measured responses, appropriate use of force, escalation based on the actions of another… these call for an ability to reason and use perspective.

For exmaple… President Bush has no other options. Am I correct? Were there other options? Not a partisan question here… and honest question. Were there other options? Were they explored? Who knows? We sure don’t. It appears we were give two options… invade now or become nuclear dust after Saddam uses his nuclear arsenal.

Wait… I forgot, even if he was as developed as the administration believed he was we were still how many years away for his bombing America?

No other options. Got it.

One of the things that you imply of the AP of doing in the heading to this article is that they are not censoring/tailoring their news to fit your views. Is it really the job of news organiztions to do this? I know this is a great debate going on so I am wondering which side you are on?

Yes, they should tailor their reporting to fit a particular political agenda (which is the major criticism of MSM today?)

No, they should report the news and let the individual decide (Which, admittedly, isn’t being done. People love to point to their example of the biased media and never ever want to contemplate that they media the believe to be unbiased just appears like that to them because they agree).

Americans: Our founding fathers… partiots!
British: Terrorists and rebels.

The North: Southernors were rebles tearing apart the Union.
The South: States Rights advocates.

Isreal: Paleistanians are terrorists.
Palestine: People are freedom fighters.

Afganistan: Against Russia, freedom fighters.
Afganistan: Against us, terrorists.

So, I guess my whole point is… even in an article designed to show how the media is manipulating us… the manipulation of the way were were interpret your evidence seemed a bit manipulative to me.

That is what I got out of your post. Not a willingness to read what you posted so I could form my own opinion, but a resentment of being force fed what I am supposed to believe based on your interpretation.

Posted by: Darren7160 at January 27, 2006 1:26 PM
Post a comment