Comments on: HuffPo Blogger says Arrest Bush for ‘Conduct Unbecoming’

By: Paul

Paul — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 22:07:59 +0000

Oh gee whiz. Not the old “I wrote it as satire” defense.

By: Fritz

Fritz — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 20:54:24 +0000

Now it's satire.

Me too. You're not supposed to agree with a satirical piece.

Me too. You're not supposed to agree with a satirical piece.

By: Fritz

Fritz — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 18:29:01 +0000

I loved his comment that it was the impeachment of President Clinton that really was a coup disguised as a legal action.

Why does he want to circumvent the Legislative Branch’s constitutional role (which includes making rules for the government and regulation of the land and navel forces)? I suppose it’s easier to move one military officer than it is to corral a squabbling, factious House.

So, he may deny to high heaven that what he’s asking for is a coup, but, effectively, there is little difference between the two.

Oh, he’s also getting pwnd by recitation of basic facts from people who, allegedly, agree with his end goal: the removal of Bush from office.

By: DRJ

DRJ — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 17:26:04 +0000

Semanticleo #51,

I agree and, FWIW, I don’t think either author was kidding although they may want us to think they were now.

By: Neocon News » Worthy of Note on August 27, 2007

Neocon News » Worthy of Note on August 27, 2007 — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 17:14:38 +0000

[...] that are covering this include Ankle Biting Pundits, Captain’s Quarters, Hot Air, Patterico’s Pontifications, QandO, Right Wing News, and Sister [...]

By: htom

htom — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 16:11:57 +0000

Now he claims that it was satire, and cites Swift and Twain as ancestors.

He missed the point, I think, in that satire is supposed to be funny.

By: Semanticleo

Semanticleo — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 13:29:50 +0000

DRJ;

I don’t like censorship in any form, but I think it irresponsible to imply an endorsement of such ideas, whether it is passive or active. If the FSM or HP pieces were meant as; ‘tongue-in-cheek’ or satire, it is difficult to justify such intentions, considering the mood of the country, as well as the pervasively distrustful atmosphere therein.

A sidebar to each article (attached to the undeleted original) with a boiler-plate disclaimer, would probably be all that needed to be said. Hope that’s clear.

By: JD

JD — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 03:33:21 +0000

Semencleo – Should the HP disavow the subject article. Yes or no. Simple response. You can do it.

By: JD

JD — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 03:31:53 +0000

DRJ – Now, surely, that clears things up. LOL

That is quite a trick, to say things that are so incomprehensible, so as to later be able to take any side of the argument (provided the side of the argument is contrary to anything a Republican may believe) and retain the ability to claim some type of intellectual consistency.

By: DRJ

DRJ — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 03:29:36 +0000

Semanticleo,

If your comment #46 is directed at me, and I think it is, my question in #44 was whether you wanted a link for Lewis or Atkinson because I wasn’t clear to whom you were referring. It didn’t occur to me at the time but, on further reflection, it could be that you were responding to my earlier question in comment #42 asking whether the Huffington Post had disavowed Lewis’ article. If so, I asked that question because I did not know the answer and because it seems appropriate for both websites to disavow these posts.