Patterico's Pontifications

2/14/2010

Cheney to Appear on ABC’s “This Week” (Updated)

Filed under: Obama,Politics,Terrorism,War — DRJ @ 5:15 am



[Guest post by DRJ]

Former Vice President Dick Cheney is scheduled to appear on ABC’s “This Week” and the White House is responding:

“Former Vice President Cheney will appear on ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday, and it’s a safe bet what he will say: President Barack Obama projects weakness to terrorists and puts American lives at risk.

It’s the kind of brutal charge — nuance-free and politically explosive — that has become a Cheney specialty since he left office 13 months ago.

Cheney’s broadsides on Afghanistan policy, detention and surveillance policies, and Obama’s general philosophy about the U.S. role in a dangerous world inevitably dominate the news. No other figure in Republican politics has equal ability to drive debate on national security, rally Obama critics and force the administration to respond. On Sunday, Vice President Joe Biden will be countering Cheney on NBC’s “Meet the Press” and CBS’s “Face the Nation.”

After providing a long list of sources that attack Cheney’s motives, Politico turned to two amusing sources for commentary on Cheney and the war on terror — Keith Olbermann and Andrew Sulllivan:

“In interviews for this article, some of Cheney’s harshest critics said the origins of his Obama criticism may be more psychological than political. MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann said in an e-mail to POLITICO that Cheney has been “shrill, totally unpatriotic and sounding more concerned with torture and interrogation than with results and intelligence.”

“I think he may believe that only his vision can save America, and thus anything, including lying to America, is justifiable,” Olbermann wrote. “This is, I believe, called ‘a Messiah Complex.’”

Andrew Sullivan, who writes “The Daily Dish” blog on The Atlantic.com, wrote in an e-mail for this story: “Cheney’s unprecedentedly aggressive approach … reflects his own knowledge that he has committed war crimes of a very grave sort, war crimes that at some point could lead to prosecution and will undoubtedly lead to historical infamy.”

“If that becomes the prevailing narrative — because it is true — he will go down in history as a man who betrayed the very core principles of Western civilization out of panic and then covered it up,” Sullivan continued. “So he has to change the subject and launch this kind of P.R. campaign to throw everyone off the scent. … Cheney is cornered. He knows justice is coming, and he knows that one day the full truth will come out and there will be no hiding. Until then, he will fight and fight and break every taboo that respect for the Constitution and for civil discourse requires.”

Critics like Sullivan and others want the media to “take away Cheney’s megaphone” by denying him coverage for his views, a tactic that (so far and to its credit) the Politico is resisting.

Nevertheless, it’s too bad the Politico didn’t include responses from a few Cheney supporters or “Obama critics” so this article would have more balance, especially since some of the responses were apparently the result of email correspondence. Surely there are a few conservatives and former Bush Administration personnel on the Politico’s contact list.

— DRJ

UPDATEABC News’ report on Cheney’s appearance:

“If [the administration is] going to take credit for [Iraq’s success], fair enough … but it ought to come with a healthy dose of ‘Thank you, George Bush’ up front and a recognition that some of their early recommendations with respect to prosecuting that war were just dead wrong,” Cheney told ABC News’ Jonathan Karl.
***
“Obama and Biden campaigned from one end of the country to the other for two years criticizing our Iraq policy,” Cheney said. “If they had had their way, if we’d followed the policies they’d pursued from the outset or advocated from the outset, Saddam Hussein would still be in power in Baghdad today.”

138 Responses to “Cheney to Appear on ABC’s “This Week” (Updated)”

  1. Well, what did you expect from a bunch of Washington Post rejects. Surely not fairness and objectivity.

    bill-tb (541ea9)

  2. I first heard of “Politico” years ago when Hugh Hewitt would have them on his show for regular commentary. At the time I had already learned to be suspicious of those who claim to be “nonpartisan” as “partisans in sheep’s clothing”. How an organization can look to Olbermann for serious commentary is a bit beyond me, unless they are looking for an example of thought from the left fringe. An Obama supporter accusing someone of having a “Messiah complex”? I’m not sure if that is funny, sad, or sick.

    And Sullivan’s, “unprecedentedly aggressive approach … reflects his own knowledge that he has committed war crimes of a very grave sort, war crimes that at some point could lead to prosecution and will undoubtedly lead to historical infamy”, is absurd hyperbole when put in the context of war in the 20th century.

    If anyone ever does make a serious attempt to charge anyone in the Bush Administration for war crimes, I hope they open the book on WWII. The bombings of Dresden and Tokyo alone likely overshadow all the civilians accidently killed in Iraq and Afghanistan (by American troops) since 2001. I could be wrong and I’d be happy to stand corrected.

    Not that one bad deed justifies another, and I’m not saying that Dresden and Tokyo were not necessary. I’m just saying get the facts right and get them in perspective.

    I think for an “April Fools” joke we should push a Cheney-Palin ticket for 2012 and watch the left’s faces distort as they try to get their words out.

    MD in Philly (d4668b)

  3. If anyone ever does make a serious attempt to charge anyone in the Bush Administration for war crimes, I hope they open the book on WWII.

    I think maybe opening the book on the Civil War would be more appropriate, because if any politician or political party ever attempts to actually charge Bush or Cheney as war criminals, that is the Pandora’s box they are tugging at the lid of.

    sherlock (e1e91e)

  4. I like Cheney even with his flaws. He was the VERY FIRST to call this lunatic retard out for his ways.

    [note: released from moderation. –Stashiu]

    HeavenSent (30a64e)

  5. It is kind of sad, and all sorts of bizarre that in the above referenced asshattery, Olbergasm comes across as measured and restrained.

    JD (295979)

  6. Politico was somewhat reliable at first but they made a hard left turn in 2008 and are a DNC mouthpiece now. Too bad because they could have been a good source.

    Biden’s appearance on MTP and FtN will, of course, be devastating but not to who he thinks it will be. Maybe he will expand on his opinion that Iraq is an Obama triumph.

    Mike K (2cf494)

  7. Mike K – do you think that those MSM sycophants will call him out on his idiocy?

    JD (295979)

  8. Apparently, the Democrats have convinced Boehner that “reconciliation” is on

    A productive bipartisan discussion should begin with a clean sheet of paper. We now know that instead of starting the ‘bipartisan’ health care ’summit’ on Feb. 25 with a clean sheet of paper, the president and his party intend to arrive with a new bill written behind closed doors exclusively by Democrats — a backroom deal that will transform one-sixth of our nation’s economy and affect every family and small business in America. They will then engage a largely handpicked audience in a televised ‘dialogue’ according to a script they have largely pre-determined. They will do this as a precursor to embarking on a legislative course that Democratic congressional aides acknowledge has also been pre-determined — a partisan course that relies on parliamentary tricks to circumvent the will of the American people and engineer a pre-determined outcome. It doesn’t sound much like bipartisanship to me.

    For the weak minded, that’s a NO to the health care summit.

    Neo (7830e6)

  9. Politico relying upon Olberdork and Sullivan? ROTFLMAO!!! They have hit the bottom of the barrel. God Bless Dick Cheney and George W. Bush!!!

    J. Raymond Wright (e8d0ca)

  10. I just read that Cheney said he supports Obama’s actions completely! LOL on Politico!

    Patricia (e1047e)

  11. I’m sorry. Does anyone take Uberdummy seriously anymore. I mean really!

    PatriotRider (1729de)

  12. Watched the segment. Just another hostile network interview of Cheney with attempted “gotcha” moments. Cheney stuck to his story and came out fine.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  13. Cheney stuck to his story and came out fine. – Obama didn’t.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  14. I think we all need to tune into fox news so that they can tell us what to think about this. You know, because they decide and report. No, wait. They narrate you decide to watch? No. They spin you decide? Eh, either way they are brilliant, objective, fair, and completely balanced.

    Intelliology (00d844)

  15. I very much agree, DRJ and had sent an email off to Jimmy V and Mike Allen asking them for more balanced reportage.

    1) Didn’t the Obama administration eliminate the CIA’s Interrogation Program?

    2) Isn’t this the same program that helped to expose numerous AQ plots after 9/11?

    3) And didn’t Obama put Mirandizing suspected enemy combatants before FBI questioning in place instead?

    Yes… yes… and yes.

    GeneralMalaise (4d34a1)

  16. Cheney agrees with Obama on Afghanistan and DADT
    Biden and NSC Jones disagree with Cheney, say he is misinformed.

    Hilarity ensues.

    Neo (7830e6)

  17. “I think we all need to tune into fox news so that they can tell us what to think about this.”

    Intelliology – Probably a good idea for people of your ilk since it’s clear you don’t have the chops to think for yourselves.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  18. Idiotology’s still hoping to graduate to the Husky size in the children’s department.

    Dmac (799abd)

  19. So they roll out Biden to counter Cheney? White House says that Cheney’s statements are “nuance free” (thank God for that) and “politically explosive”.

    Well in the Biden/Cheney “shootout”, Cheney’s statements will hit like a 5″ gun from an old Fletcher class destroyer. Sort of “politically explosive” one might say. As for Biden? His statements will be “nuance free”–more likely simply unhinged—and will hit like a squirt from a $1.99 water pistol.

    As for the troll Intelliology? Go off to the corner and play with your mud pies.

    Mike Myers (3c9845)

  20. You left out the best quote. This was by far my favorite and made me laugh out loud at this story masquerading as an editorial..

    Stephen M. Walt, a professor of international affairs at Harvard University, was more succinct: “Have you, at long last, no shred of decency left? Oh, never mind. Silly question.”

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. HIlarious.

    Dopey (a812c5)

  21. You think that Dick Cheney is taken seriously by anybody but the staunch conservatives? Doubt it, Mr. Myers.

    Intelliology (00d844)

  22. Walt, the coauthor of the modern version of the Protocols, which was first published in Arabic
    in Riyadh, the Israeli lobby, that’s some unintended
    humor there

    ian cormac (b07ff6)

  23. The unspoken rule that former presidents refrain from knocking their successors is one that I’ve generally admired. But bigmouth Jimmy Carter and certainly scroungy, no-class Bill Clinton broke that bit of informal etiquette some time ago. Hardly surprising since liberals have dumbed down just about everything through the years.

    Moreover, in the case of Dick Cheney, he is a former vice president whose his former boss, George Bush, has been appropriately quiet since 2008.

    I think we all need to tune into fox news so that they can tell us what to think about this.

    As compared with all the fools on the left who get their marching orders from junk like the oh-so-objective New York Times and oh-so-non-partisan CNN?

    Oh, and their biases aren’t liberal! Their biases are “progressive!”

    Mark (411533)

  24. You think that Dick Cheney is taken seriously by anybody but the staunch conservatives? Doubt it, Mr. Myers

    It’s not about Cheney. It’s about the terror policies of this Administration and the criticism of them.

    Time after time after time, the criticism by Cheney has won out.

    Call Cheney every name you want just like Olbermann and Sullivan did. But neither can respond to his arguments.

    That’s who they are and that’s what they do.

    SteveMG (d88fb1)

  25. It appears he is taken seriously by the Obami and, the last I heard, they were not “staunch conservatives.

    Mike K (2cf494)

  26. Surely there are a few conservatives and former Bush Administration personnel on the Politico’s contact list.

    Since their contact list is the JournoList, that seems highly unlikely.

    Subotai (d08808)

  27. Seems like the commenters selected by Politico don’t realise that Cheney isn’t Chaney – and also that Chaney was an *actor* portraying monsters on film … they seem to believe that those were reality shows …

    Intelliology apparently thought that his nickname choice was pronounced in-telly-ology based on his study of the ‘science’ of TV-reality …

    Oh well …

    Alasdair (dee5fe)

  28. Time after time after time, the criticism by Cheney has won out.

    How do you figure that?

    Intelliology (00d844)

  29. As for Biden?

    Wow! There’s someone we can take seriously and have a lot of confidence in.

    Since Biden claims that Franklin Roosevelt spoke to the nation via television, I next expect him to claim that the modern-day teleprompters always hovering around Obama’s podium — and which the president has been ridiculed for — actually are music stands, left around by some band or orchestra.

    Mark (411533)

  30. I’ll take criticism all day long from Keith Olderman. How is the ag school grad’s opinion more informed than that of the the flooring dept manager’s at Home Depot?

    jd (a826dd)

  31. No one takes Cheney seriously???

    That’s why the WH rolled Biden out both before AND after the broadcast of Cheney’s interview.

    ROTFLMAO.

    shipwreckedcrew (3d3fb8)

  32. Intelliology is obviously too clueless to notice that when Cheney criticizes the Obama administration policy, they change the policy. But instead we get vapid crap from him. Hardly an improvement over Intelliology’s falsehoods.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  33. Hugh Hewitt called Olbermann a know-nothing former sportscaster in the most direct and unequivocal fashion last week on Reliable Sources, where he was on opposite Arianna Huffington. I didn’t see or hear any response from Olbermann this week.

    But he did make his not-unintentional boneheaded statement about the “national deficit” when he was referring to the “national debt.” It wasn’t a minor moment of “mis-speaking” when you read the entirety of his contents. He clearly didn’t understand the different use of “debt” and “deficit” in the context in which he was speaking.

    Which should tell you all you need to know about him.

    shipwreckedcrew (3d3fb8)

  34. You think that Dick Cheney is taken seriously by anybody but the staunch conservatives? Doubt it, Mr. Myers

    How do you figure that?

    Notice how the fratboy intellectual fails to answer the responses to his initial post, but goes instead to another subject entirely.

    Dmac (799abd)

  35. Dmac, we’ve only to wait for a bit before Intelliology will give us a new fabrication.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  36. Hardly surprising since liberals have dumbed down just about everything through the years.

    Right. The only thing they could not dumb down is Bush-loving “conservatism” – it was terminally dumb from the start!

    Triumph (b66fe4)

  37. I love how BDS is always a card the left plays. They think it actually carries the same weight it carried 14 months ago. And this whole GWB as poster-boy Conservative is laughable. GWB was right-leaning but he was no Conservative.

    Those talking points have been old for quite some time. Gotta get new talking points.

    John Hitchcock (c1d456)

  38. “No one takes Cheney seriously???

    That’s why the WH rolled Biden out both before AND after the broadcast of Cheney’s interview.”

    Spot on!

    GeneralMalaise (4d34a1)

  39. How do you figure that?

    Poll numbers on the policies, public support for Cheney’s positions over Obama’s re Miranda, military trials, et cetera, and the slowly-but-surely changes in Obama Administration’s policies on the matter.

    Is Gitmo closed yet? Will it be? Will the detainees all be given civilian trials?

    The Obama Administration is either backtracking, openly changing or slowing down its earlier positions.

    SteveMG (d88fb1)

  40. “Hardly surprising since liberals have dumbed down just about everything through the years.”

    Lowest common denominator is their rule. The Left is not only wrong on every major issue of our time, it is wrong as wrong can be. The left is diametrically opposed to what is good and right and successful. In fact, it will invariably choose and preach behaviors that lead to failure, rather than those that lead to success.

    GeneralMalaise (4d34a1)

  41. Lowest common denominator is their rule.

    They took it from conservative blogs and their mentally-challenged commenters.

    Triumph (b66fe4)

  42. Don’t let those tears blind you as you type, Tri-rump.

    GeneralMalaise (4d34a1)

  43. Don’t let those tears blind you as you type, Tri-rump.

    Idiocy has the power to make me weep. Needless to say, I often read this blog with tears in my eyes.

    Triumph (b66fe4)

  44. I’m sure you do a good many things with tears in your eyes, tired-rump.

    GeneralMalaise (4d34a1)

  45. They manufactured large parts of the global warming narrative, at least since 1995, they insisted Iraq
    was untamable, they pressed for ESCR when other research has born fruit, it’s all a fraud

    ian cormac (b07ff6)

  46. The Left is not only wrong on every major issue of our time, it is wrong as wrong can be.

    Not just wrong, but both phony and wrong too.

    The following to me is sort of the last straw, referring to the growing disdain I’ve had for the left (ie, “progressives”) through the years and it being solidifed and verified upon even closer inspection:

    Gerald Warner, London Telegraph, 12-22-08:

    It’s official: bleeding-heart liberals give much less to the needy than do supposedly hard-faced conservatives. In a comment piece in the New York Times – the house magazine of compassion-dripping liberals – Nicholas D Kristof has collated a swarm of data from recent researches and found it shames the left-wing, secularist Scrooges whose contributions to deserving causes are dwarfed by conservatives largely motivated by Christian charity.

    Kristof cites the evidence in the book Who Really Cares? by Arthur Brooks, who found that households headed by conservatives give 30 per cent more to charity than households headed by liberals. Those findings, however, are kind to the left, compared to a study by Google which showed that average annual contributions to charity from conservatives were almost double those of liberals.

    The “generosity index” of the Catalogue for Philanthropy finds that Republican “red states” are the most likely to donate to non-profit-making philanthropies; North-Eastern Democrat “blue states” are the least likely to give. Kristof, himself a liberal, is appealing to his fellow bleeding hearts to live up to their rhetoric and stop being tightwads.

    Brooks was astonished by his own findings. That was a trifle naive of him. Only those gullible enough to be deluded by liberal rhetoric, in America or anywhere else, could imagine it had any basis in reality. Liberals excel at talking the talk – just don’t ask them to walk the walk.

    Mark (411533)

  47. I’m not sure that it’s a good political idea to attack Obama on the terror war, as it IS in Obama’s power to get some traction there. He’s got the entire US Armed Forces and more to work with.

    Cheney will look pretty silly if he keeps bashing Obama on this point and tomorrow, say, al-Zawahiri or OBL turns up dead in an air strike. It could happen.

    Not only that, but the MSM’s current sycophantic coverage of the Afghan operations might make it look like he’s getting traction which is almost as bad. And it’s not like they’re going to credit the Right with moving Obama to action.

    Kevin Murphy (3c3db0)

  48. Looks like introlliology changed his moniker to Triumph. Oh ain’t he so clever.

    peedoffamerican (c15fe4)

  49. This truly is a bizarre story by Politico.

    I’ve never seen so much criticism by the media at a critic of an Administration policy. Usually the press loves criticism of a White House.

    But Cheney qua Cheney seems to be the focus and not his criticism of the White House policies.

    During the campaign (and before), Candidates Obama and Biden repeatedly stated that the Bush Administration had made us less safer. They charged that the Iraq war and Bush’s detention policies had angered the Islamic world and his “unilateralism” had alienated our allie. So, he had made us less safe.

    Somehow that was acceptable criticism. But if someone makes the same claim at the Obama Administration, that’s somehow unacceptable.

    I don’t get it. Well, actually I do.

    SteveMG (d88fb1)

  50. Excellent post, Mark. Charity goes hand-in-hand with finding happiness in one’s life. Conservatives are a happier lot, as well.

    GeneralMalaise (4d34a1)

  51. Cheney will look pretty silly

    More than he does now? Impossible.

    Triumph (b66fe4)

  52. Hey Stashiu,

    Looks like we have another sockpuppet. See my 46.

    peedoffamerican (c15fe4)

  53. More than he does now? Impossible.

    Obama may be winning the swimsuit category but Cheney’s winning the policy one.

    Besides, Cheney doesn’t give a flying fig about what people think about him.

    SteveMG (d88fb1)

  54. Nope, brand new “progressive voice speaking truth to power” as far as I know. With that, I’m out for a while for real-life stuff. Don’t break the blog while I’m gone. 😉

    Stashiu3 (44da70)

  55. Cheney looks like a concerned American patriot, and Biden looks like a two-bit con man selling snake oil to low-brow buffoons.

    ropelight (c1df7a)

  56. You think that Dick Cheney is taken seriously by anybody but the staunch conservatives? Doubt it, Mr. Myers.
    Comment by Intelliology — 2/14/2010 @ 9:05 am

    Cheney will look pretty silly
    More than he does now? Impossible.

    Comment by Triumph — 2/14/2010 @ 10:31 am

    Then why does the left which to stifle his right to freedom of speech and “take away Cheney’s megaphone”?

    What are you and the left so afraid of??

    Unlike you on the left, we are pro freedom of speech for everyone – no matter which side of the aisle they dwell. And unlike you, the more outlandish one is, the more we wish them to have that megaphone because politicians flapping their gums are generally their own undoing. So, with that, can’t wait to see Biden!

    Dana (1e5ad4)

  57. Cheney looks like a concerned American patriot

    Patriots don’t screw the Constitution, nor they betray the ideals of the Founding Fathers like Dicky and his presidential sockpuppet have done. Anyone with such a record should have the decency to shut up. W. has. Cheney has not. So typical.

    What are you and the left so afraid of??

    It’s not about fear, and I’m not on the Left – but then I guess Teddy Roosevelt, Eisenhower and even Nixon were closet-socialists to you.

    Triumph (b66fe4)

  58. Triumph, obviously you are not a serious person with those silly claims. No one has done anything to “screw the Constitution”. Nor “betray” founding fathers.

    By the way, do learn some history. Teddy Roosevelt was a Progressive.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  59. Perhaps Tiredrump should turn those tears of rage towards Obama’s new proposal to listen in on the cell phone calls of ALL Americans. Being as how he’s such a protector of the Constitution and all.

    GeneralMalaise (4d34a1)

  60. The insultdog is in end-stage BDS, and the idea that it is not on the left is laughable. Concerned christian conservative voter, perhaps? 😉

    JD (4b5a65)

  61. And also how Ostumbler is trying to force the American people to buy his version of health insurance in direct violation of the US Constitution.

    peedoffamerican (c15fe4)

  62. Triumph, obviously you are not a serious person with those silly claims. No one has done anything to “screw the Constitution”. Nor “betray” founding fathers.

    Either you must have lived on another planet for the last ten years or the Constitution you read is not the same as mine but I don’t see how you can type this with a straight face. Patriot Act? Gitmo? Imperial executive?

    By the way, do learn some history. Teddy Roosevelt was a Progressive.

    Thank you for making my point.

    Triumph (b66fe4)

  63. It’s not about fear, and I’m not on the Left – but then I guess Teddy Roosevelt, Eisenhower and even Nixon were closet-socialists to you.

    Comment by Triumph — 2/14/2010 @ 11:13 am

    Then what do you call it when when one group wishes to stifle the free speech of another by trying to compel others to take away his megaphone and deny public coverage?

    Dana (1e5ad4)

  64. Triumph, there is nothing contrary to the Constitution with Gitmo, nor with the PATRIOT Act.

    FDR got away with far more in the treatment of enemy combatants than the Bush administration ever attempted. And the PATRIOT Act introduced nothing contrary to Constitutional rights, it only extended existing practices on search warrants, financial transactions and such. Anyone who actually bothered to read the PATRIOT Act rather than listening to silly pratting from Keith Olbermann would know that. Your claims are indeed silly nonsense.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  65. Perhaps Tiredrump should turn those tears of rage towards Obama’s new proposal to listen in on the cell phone calls of ALL Americans. Being as how he’s such a protector of the Constitution and all.

    Obama isn’t much better on civil liberties but he was not the one starting the fire. How strange and revealing that you can’t think of the possibility that I can be critical of both Cheney and Obama. Do you really think everyone is as one-sided as you and your clones from the other side are?

    The insultdog is in end-stage BDS, and the idea that it is not on the left is laughable.

    You people are so right-wing that even Margaret Thatcher looks like Che Guevara in comparison.

    Triumph (b66fe4)

  66. This is truly end-stage BDS on display here, folks.

    JD (4b5a65)

  67. Then what do you call it when when one group wishes to stifle the free speech of another by trying to compel others to take away his megaphone and deny public coverage?

    Obviously it’s not working.

    Triumph (b66fe4)

  68. JD, not mere BDS, but utter ignorance. Triumph has not a single clue on what he’s sputtering about and lacks the ability to elucidate any of his silly irrational opinions.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  69. #63/Dana

    Fascism;

    (sometimes initial capital letter) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.

    Teetop (1f1551)

  70. Do you really think everyone is as one-sided as you and your clones from the other side are?
    …You people are so right-wing that even Margaret Thatcher looks like Che Guevara in comparison.

    Pot, meet kettle.

    Pious Agnostic (b2c3ab)

  71. Fascism

    The favorite political slur of those who never experienced it.

    Triumph (b66fe4)

  72. Another centrist moderate independent, to be sure.

    JD (4b5a65)

  73. Then what do you call it when when one group wishes to stifle the free speech of another by trying to compel others to take away his megaphone and deny public coverage?
    Obviously it’s not working.
    Comment by Triumph — 2/14/2010 @ 11:37 am

    You avoid the question: what do *you* call it when one wishes to stifle the free speech of another by trying to compel others to take away his megaphone and deny public coverage?

    Dana (1e5ad4)

  74. Obama isn’t much better on civil liberties but he was not the one starting the fire. How strange and revealing that you can’t think of the possibility that I can be critical of both Cheney and Obama. Do you really think everyone is as one-sided as you and your clones from the other side are?

    Yet another person who is against “both sides” but who in reality is to the left of the Democratic Party. It seems like more and more of these people are popping up lately.

    Subotai (d08808)

  75. I’m not on the Left

    That’s nice. I’m not on the Right. So we too centerists can have a nice talk together.

    Subotai (d08808)

  76. _________________________________

    and I’m not on the Left

    Yea, uh-huh, sure you are.

    However, as I was reading the following, I would say there are issues out there that are rather non-partisan or bi-ideological in nature. One in which Obama ends up being the worst of both worlds…


    weeklystandard.com, William Kristol, 2-10-10

    Paul Krugman [liberal columnist at the NY Times] is, I think, right to be amazed by Obama’s embrace of the $17 million bonus given to JPMorgan Chase Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon and the $9 million issued to Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein.

    If Obama’s idea of moving to the middle politically is to embrace Wall Street’s too-big-to-fail banks, he’s crazy. Usually Republicans are the party of Big Business and Democrats of Big Government, and the public’s hostility to both more or less evens the politics out. But if Obama now becomes the spokesman for Big Government intrusiveness and the apologist for Big Business irresponsibility all at once–good luck with that.

    And look at the tone-deafness of Obama’s comments about the bonuses:

    “President Barack Obama said he doesn’t ‘begrudge’ the $17 million bonus awarded to JPMorgan Chase & Co. Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon or the $9 million issued to Goldman Sachs Group Inc. CEO Lloyd Blankfein, noting that some athletes take home more pay. The president, speaking in an interview, said in response to a question that while $17 million is ‘an extraordinary amount of money’ for Main Street, ‘there are some baseball players who are making more than that and don’t get to the World Series either, so I’m shocked by that as well.’

    ‘I know both those guys; they are very savvy businessmen,’ Obama said in the interview yesterday in the Oval Office with Bloomberg BusinessWeek, which will appear on newsstands Friday. ‘I, like most of the American people, don’t begrudge people success or wealth. That is part of the free-market system.”

    First of all, as Krugman points out, “irresponsible behavior by baseball players hasn’t brought the world economy to the brink of collapse.” Nor has the federal government spent billions (trillions?) bailing out baseball owners after they signed foolish contracts. Nor does it guarantee baseball owners’–or players’–future solvency.

    And second, doesn’t Obama realize how creepy this statement is? “I know both those guys; they are very savvy businessmen.”

    This confirms the suspicion that we now live in a world of crony capitalism, where if Obama knows and thinks well of you, then you don’t get criticized–but if you’re some guy who hasn’t spent a lot of time cozying up to government leaders, then you could easily be the object of demagogic assault by politicians.

    Conservatives and Republicans should not–as some seem to be tempted to do–praise Obama for being friendlier to business in this interview than he has been in the past. They should point out that he’s friendly to big businessmen* who are friendly to him, and to businessmen whose businesses are enmeshed in an unhealthy way with big government–and that he remains hostile to markets and indifferent, at best, to businessmen who are actually trying to make it without depending on the goodwill of politicians and favors from the government.

    * There certainly are a variety of limousine liberals stationed in various jobs throughout Wall Street, throughout the cushy, cozy island of very Democrat-Party-lovin’ Manhattan.

    Mark (411533)

  77. JD, not mere BDS, but utter ignorance. Triumph has not a single clue on what he’s sputtering about and lacks the ability to elucidate any of his silly irrational opinions.

    Anyone disagreeing with “Conservatives” is either stupid, deluded or hypocritical. Makes debate – assuming “Conservatives” are willing to debate anything – much easier but not that fruitful. I, for one, have better things to do out of my precious time than arguing with right-wing ideologues whose manners mirror exactly those of left-wing ideologues. Farewell everybody, for the moment at least.

    Triumph (b66fe4)

  78. Is that a threat, or a promise, Triumph?

    Your lack of self-awareness is cute.

    JD (4b5a65)

  79. And, Triumph leaves in a huff (his favorite form of transportation).

    The “You guys aren’t worth debating” didn’t work when I was in Middle School, either. But it did end the debate.

    Pious Agnostic (b2c3ab)

  80. Triumph, have you no understanding of english? You quoted me, did you not notice that I did not call you stupid, deluded or hypocritical? I called you ignorant.

    Nothing you’ve done has contradicted that. You’ve all these vague rhetorical nonsense without any specifics at all.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  81. Triumph, please, before you leave, answer my question:

    What exactly do you call it when one group attempts to stifle the free speech of another that they disagree with; so much so that they attempt to compel others to deny him coverage, and to take away avenues that might make it public????

    Dana (1e5ad4)

  82. Triumph???

    Triumph???

    Helloooo????

    Dana (1e5ad4)

  83. You’ll find nothing behind Triumph’s silly comments, Dana. Like above, where he cites the PATRIOT Act as screwing the Constitution, but has not a clue what was in the PATRIOT Act nor how it was unconstitutional.

    Nothing there.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  84. SPQR, it would have been interesting and perhaps insightful to hear Triumph’s own attempt to justify attempts to stifle the speech of others: Either by compelling others not to lend voice to one they disagree with, or to take away the megaphone. Because it just seems rather narrow minded and bigoted…reminds me of the run-of-the-mill prog.

    Dana (1e5ad4)

  85. But then regardless of the left’s attempts to stifle Cheney, he can hold his own, which is of course why they want him to shut up:

    KARL: OK, before we get to Eric Holder, a couple more things from the vice president. He’s been out responding preemptively to you. One thing he said we heard in the open, that he believes Iraq may ultimately prove to be one of the greatest achievements of the Obama administration.

    CHENEY: Well, I — I guess I shouldn’t be surprised by my friend, Joe Biden. I’m glad he now believes Iraq is a success. Of course, Obiden and — Obama and Biden campaigned from one end of the country to the other for two years criticizing our Iraq policy.

    CHENEY: They opposed the surge that was absolutely crucial to our getting to the point we’re at now with respect to Iraq. And for them to try to take credit for what’s happened in Iraq strikes me as a little strange. I think if — if they had had their way, if we’d followed the policies they’d pursued from the outset or advocated from the outset, Saddam Hussein would still be in power in Baghdad today.

    So if they’re going to take credit for it, fair enough, for what they’ve done while they’re there, but it ought to go with a healthy dose of “Thank you, George Bush” up front and a recognition that some of their early recommendations, with respect to prosecuting that war, we’re [sic] just dead wrong.

    Dana (1e5ad4)

  86. AWWWWW, Triumph hopped in his Huffmobile and roared off in a cloud of global warming dust.

    CYA, wouldn’t wanta BEYA.

    peedoffamerican (b21f59)

  87. Attention, ladies and gentlemen… Tiredrump has left the building.

    Tiredrump… we (hardly knew ye) definitely knew you too well.

    GeneralMalaise (4d34a1)

  88. I really do miss Darth Cheney. I miss knowing he’s in some undisclosed location plotting. Made me feel safe. 😀

    (insert respectful snark font here)

    Vivian Louise (643333)

  89. (sorry , I’m late to the party)

    (@24 SteveMG) Time after time after time, the criticism by Cheney has won out.

    (@28 Intelliology) How do you figure that?

    Just examine your own comments in this thread, Intelliology. You have not offered a single rebuttal or counterpoint to any of Mr. Cheney’s remarks (you have not even quoted or referred to them).

    You have merely initiated personal attacks against straw-men and a news service. Your inability to debate Mr. Cheney’s criticisms is because they mostly are valid.

    Your need to insult is because you have no valid debate against those that might agree with the logic of many of his criticisms. You are unable to accept and learn because of a closed mind that does not tolerate any deviation from a “supreme” philosophy.

    Pons Asinorum (f6829b)

  90. (@84 Dana) SPQR, it would have been interesting and perhaps insightful to hear Triumph’s own attempt to justify attempts to stifle the speech of others: Either by compelling others not to lend voice to one they disagree with, or to take away the megaphone.

    If I may…Triumph cannot because he would run the risk of contradicting his own values and face an ugly truth. The philosophy he espouses cannot tolerate debate because it is inferior in many of its principle aspects. As such, Triumph dare not respond on logical terms, lest he run the risk of resorting to ridiculous rebuttals or the realization that his philosophy is wrong on many topics. Yet the same philosophy professes an absolute adherence to free speech. So his solution – not respond, change the subject, ignore your question and eventually, run away (plus a few insults and straw-men attacks for good measure).

    BTW: @82 made me LOL!

    Pons Asinorum (f6829b)

  91. ABC news “This Week” had an interesting discussion about Cheney. Many of the things he has been saying were things that were apparently getting ignored by Bush as well.
    The video is at realclearpolitics.com if interested.

    voiceofreason2 (d68de9)

  92. Oh cheney has such a hard time getting into the politico.

    imdw (a0b2f3)

  93. I, for one, have better things to do out of my precious time than arguing with right-wing ideologues

    “…even though I just spent most of my afternoon arguing with people I fervently feel I shouldn’t be wasting my time arguing with.” Yeah – got it.

    Dmac (799abd)

  94. Liz Cheney was on Fox this morning and by sheer coincidence echoed many of the same thing said by her father.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  95. It steams me to no end that candidate Obama and Biden repeatedly charged that Bush had made us “less safe” with his policies. That Iraq and Gitmo had angered the Islamic world and that Bush’s “cowboy foreign policy” had alienated our allies. Those policies increased the threat, they said, from terrorists.

    The press didn’t get upset with these charges. For some reason it was okay for them to claim that Bush made us less safe.

    But if the charges are reversed, if the Obama Administration is accused of making us less safe, somehow that’s “fear mongering” or unacceptable discourse.

    Phooey on that.

    SteveMG (d88fb1)

  96. SteveMG – I’m glad you brought up those old charges by the Dems of Bush’s policies making us less safe.

    It forces you to make a decision about the Obama Admninistration’s cowardly retreat into the false “we’re really not doing anything differently than the Bush Administration” talking point.

    Were they lying then or are they making us less safe now?

    daleyrocks (718861)

  97. What was the talking dog from the Conan show saying
    again?

    ian cormac (b07ff6)

  98. Thanks, SPQR, for your assessment. Seems that Cheney is in charge of Obama’s administration too?

    Could you possibly provide a link demonstrating that I am correct and that you are not, for old time’s sake?

    Intelliology (00d844)

  99. I, for one, have better things to do out of my precious time than arguing with right-wing ideologues

    Evidently not.

    Gregory of Yardale (a84c5d)

  100. Intelliology – What color are your brain farts?

    daleyrocks (718861)

  101. Comment by Pons Asinorum — 2/14/2010 @ 12:45 pm

    Ultimately it boils down to hypocrisy. While I recognize it’s vital one not confuse a private enterprise like ABC with the government as far as the right to free speech, the point is, this is yet another group presuming to tell others what is and isn’t acceptable for the public to hear (see: Pam Tebow ad and NOW).

    The hypocrisy is stunning and the refusal to own up to it and instead try to wiggle out of it or better yet, self-righteously stomp out of the room (or thread) while throwing an insult over one’s shoulder is a microcosm of the left at large: They are a wholly unprogressive group who do not revel in the unbelievable privilege we have here for people of all p.o.v.s to be heard.

    It also makes me a bit nervous because while this subtle-strong arming by those who disagree with a politician is nothing new, these are some of the most polarizing times we’ve yet seen in the last 30 years. With the economy, health care, Afghanistan, Iran, China, unemployment, etc., etc., tensions are high and if ever there was a time to make sure no one is strong armed into denying anyone be heard, it’s perhaps now.

    Dana (1e5ad4)

  102. Comment by daleyrocks — 2/14/2010 @ 2:49 pm

    Here comes the cavalry. Whatcha got, DR? Gonna tell me how it is in your world? I’d invite you to join reality. You know, that place where science done by real scientists trumps science sponsored by Dick Cheney subsidiary companies. We’ve got a nice warm spot in the fire waiting for you!

    Intelliology (00d844)

  103. The Dana who should more closely examine these threads:

    Yeah the conservatives on these threads do not insult at all. You are totally and completely above reproach.

    Intelliology – What color are your brain farts?

    Tiredrump… we (hardly knew ye) definitely knew you too well

    Idiotology’s still hoping to graduate to the Husky size in the children’s department

    Now what were you saying about hypocrisy?

    Intelliology (00d844)

  104. Sheesh Dana,

    What was NOW and Planned Parenthood gonna use as an ad to compete with those rabid anti-choice Tebow’s Choose Life message?

    Choose Death?

    :-)

    They just had to try and censor something they can’t compete against.

    peedoffamerican (b21f59)

  105. Intelliology, so you are denying that when Dick Cheney has been pressuring the Obama administration, that Obama changes policy in response. Well, that matches your general ignorance.

    BTW, the claim that Dick Cheney is funding AGW skeptics is simply another example of your dishonesty. People like John Daly, Ross McKitrick, McIntyre, and many others have been doing their work from an interest in the science. Its is the AGW adherents who control millions of dollars.

    But dishonesty is what your reputation is, and will be.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  106. ^truly awesome projection – never mentions the fact that its initial posts on this blog (and subsequent ones) were insulting and wholly content and fact – free. Got upset when others responded in kind, and always runs out of the room when confronted with said hypocricy and/or lack of substance for numerous rants. To use just once example – not one source provided today for Cheney rants and inane comments about Fox news.

    Dmac (799abd)

  107. “one”

    Dmac (799abd)

  108. I think we all need to tune into fox news so that they can tell us what to think about this.

    Comment by Intelliology — 2/14/2010 @ 8:27 am

    First coment of the thread today – but always complains when others respond in like manner. Child – like intellect.

    Dmac (799abd)

  109. I think we all need to tune into fox news so that they can tell us what to think about this.

    Comment by Intelliology — 2/14/2010 @ 8:27 am

    First comment of the thread today – but always complains when others respond in like manner. Child – like intellect.

    Dmac (799abd)

  110. Comment by Dmac — 2/14/2010 @ 3:07 pm

    You just pointed to your own post and called it projection. Yes, yes I agree.

    Intelliology (00d844)

  111. —I’m not sure that it’s a good political idea to attack Obama on the terror war, as it IS in Obama’s power to get some traction there. He’s got the entire US Armed Forces and more to work with. —

    If teleprompter in chief pulls his head from his anal orifice and conducts the national defense in a way that will actually, you know, protect American lives, then its a good idea. Politically not so good, but good for America. I’m good with that.

    Its not a game. Its American lives threatened by islamic terrorism.

    red (7b5f67)

  112. Comment by SPQR — 2/14/2010 @ 3:04 pm

    Dick Cheney has no affect on the Obama administration’s decisions. Or, perhaps you would like me to phrase it like this: Dick Cheney has had as much effect on the Obama administration as Obama had on the Bush administration.

    Intelliology (00d844)

  113. Intelliology, you are only proving that you are not paying attention.

    Something we were already convinced of.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  114. In Xanadu did Kubla Khan a stately pleasure dome decree,
    Where Alph the sacred river ran, thru caverns measureless to man down to an endless sea.

    What does this incomplete poem by Coleridge have in common with introliilogy?

    They both have pipe dreams.

    Guess what introll’s been smokin’ again.

    peedoffamerican (b21f59)

  115. Dick Cheney has no affect on the Obama administration’s decisions

    So why was Slow Joe on two programs this morning?

    red (7b5f67)

  116. I don’t know who you are referring to, red (isn’t red symbolic of communism?). Do you mean Vice President Joe Biden?

    Intelliology (00d844)

  117. Yet another example that Intelliology is not paying attention – he is ignorant of Joe Biden’s nickname.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  118. “I’d invite you to join reality.”

    Intelliology – Keep guzzling that favorite beverage of yours. Don’t spill, they can always test the DNA.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  119. Sorta for the same reason that we were taught in school when I grew up, Red.

    Duck and cover to protect you from the blast and fallout.

    peedoffamerican (b21f59)

  120. The Dana who should more closely examine these threads:
    Yeah the conservatives on these threads do not insult at all. You are totally and completely above reproach.

    Intelliology, I did indeed go back and re-examine this thread, and as I suspected, nowhere did I insult Triumph nor anyone else that I disagree with, and so yes, in this, I am above reproach. How about that!

    Now can we get serious: You know as well as I that the larger point and with context, is an undeniable hypocrisy and attempt to impose a muzzle on an individual who rejects this administration’s claims and views, and isn’t afraid to say so. And that’s very unprogressive behavior…or perhaps it’s the standard.

    Again, *if* Cheney were simply an irrelevant old artifact, why would anyone care about what he says, and who hears it?

    The question answers itself.

    Dana (1e5ad4)

  121. Intelliology, you are only proving that you are not paying attention.

    It’s even worse today than previously noted – when it’s own post is repeated, it actually thinks it was someone else’s. Then not even knowing Biden’s well – worn nickname; sheesh.

    red (isn’t red symbolic of communism?)

    Does it even understand what it’s commenting on?

    Dmac (799abd)

  122. Idiotology again proves itself to be a case study in a complete lack of self-awareness, honesty, and ability to read. Pity.

    JD (ff4baa)

  123. You know, Intelliology, no one makes you write stupid things. No one makes you write complete lies here.

    You choose to do it. Without any coercion at all.

    The question is: why if your view of things is so brilliant do you need to fabricate? Why if your view of things is so brilliant need you write silly, vapid and ignorant statements?

    SPQR (26be8b)

  124. —I don’t know who you are referring to, red (isn’t red symbolic of communism?). Do you mean Vice President Joe Biden?—

    Stand up, Chuck, let ‘em see ya. -At a campaign event Joe Biden (AKA Slow Joe) calls on a Missouri state senator to stand up and be recognized. And then the Democratic vice-presidential candidate realizes that local pol Chuck Graham is wheelchair-bound.

    And yes red is symbolic of communism. Its part of my Alinskiite strategy (Rule 5).

    red (7b5f67)

  125. The dana who doesn’t seem to read very well:
    Examine the portions that I italicized. Then re-examine them. Eh?

    Intelliology (00d844)

  126. Oh good grief, Intelliology, how old are you?

    I’m not the least bit interested or responsible for what others say to you. I am however, very interested in the actual post which suggests that there is an attempt being made to persuade a private company to refrain from publicly airing the points of view of an ex-politician. And that this is a hypocrisy of the left along the same lines as the Tebow ad. IOW, if we don’t agree with it, we don’t want it aired. Now that seems rather narrow-minded and bigoted, no?

    And, Intelliology, that’s Dana, not dana.

    Dana (1e5ad4)

  127. Oh good grief, Intelliology, how old are you?

    The usual guesstimates from the rest of this site puts its age to be about 18, and it also exemplifies the attitude and entitlement of a trustafarian fratboy. No prior work history is indicated.

    Dmac (799abd)

  128. The problem is, if you can’t even name the enemy, how do you fight him

    http://www.politico.com/blogs/joshgerstein/0210/Brennan_unruffled_talks_terror_at_NYU.html

    ian cormac (b07ff6)

  129. “Dick Cheney has no affect on the Obama administration’s decisions.”

    Intelliology – Right. Neither does Fox News. Now pull my other finger, junior.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  130. #101 — Comment by Dana — 2/14/2010 @ 2:50 pm
    The hypocrisy is stunning and the refusal to own up to it and instead try to wiggle out of it or better yet, self-righteously stomp out of the room (or thread) while throwing an insult over one’s shoulder is a microcosm of the left at large: They are a wholly unprogressive group who do not revel in the unbelievable privilege we have here for people of all p.o.v.s to be heard.

    My view has always been from the prism of a Left/Right political spectrum. At the furthest extent of the Left is tyranny and on the Right is anarchy. The genius of the Founding Fathers was to set the foundation of the country at the midpoint.

    Today we are out of balance and tyranny threatens. The opening sequence must include a suppression of free speech (things like the “Fairness Doctrine”, or reporting dissenters to a White House website, or belittling the opposition, etc).

    I however do not see it as hypocrisy. It is a tactic or more simply camouflage. There is no hypocrisy because there is no love of free speech by the Left (even if a pawn of the Left thinks there is, or professes there is). Indeed, leftist philosophy demands a suppression of free speech, preferably in a manner that will not alert the opposition until it is too late.

    Triumph or Intelliology are simply pawns who may not even be aware of what has happened to them (Intelliology seems awfully young and can perhaps be forgiven). To defend their own beliefs or philosophic principles on a moral basis is impossible for them. They cannot. Nor do they view it as intellectual cowardice or hypocrisy, as those members of the opposition who might ask such questions are not worthy and should only be ignored or insulted. Please note Triumph’s and Intelliology’s respective behaviors (ignoring the obvious immaturity).

    Intelliology cannot engage on a sustained intellectual level and quickly resorts to childish insults. Triumph simply ran from your question.

    It also makes me a bit nervous because while this subtle-strong arming by those who disagree with a politician is nothing new, these are some of the most polarizing times we’ve yet seen in the last 30 years. With the economy, health care, Afghanistan, Iran, China, unemployment, etc., etc., tensions are high and if ever there was a time to make sure no one is strong armed into denying anyone be heard, it’s perhaps now.

    Interesting times for sure; the Right responds (Tea Party, polling trends, etc) to the power shift toward the Left. The Left’s attempt to diminish Free Speech is slowing coming into view by the rest of the nation; this at a time when our unity is solely needed.

    I think our nation has been through worse times: the Civil War, the Great Depression, WWII, etc. Maybe our nation has always been a single event away from destruction throughout most of our history; every generation tested. Perhaps we are in such a time now; perhaps this is our test.

    There has never been a guarantee of our nation’s survival. If this is our test, I welcome it; and fear it.

    Then again, it might just be a bunch of dumb punks who got lucky and captured the White House and Congress when nobody was looking. If that’s the case, then by 2012 this matter will be over and just a bad memory, as the adults will be back in charge.

    I hope it is the latter.

    Pons Asinorum (b14377)

  131. when ‘nobody’ was looking.

    You all were looking. That makes you a bunch of nobodies!

    Intelliology (00d844)

  132. Intelliology cannot engage on a sustained intellectual level and quickly resorts to childish insults.

    ^Roger that, we have confirmation.

    Dmac (799abd)

  133. Well, the grade level of the insults are dropping rapidly. I think we just saw Intelliology go through 3rd grade, heading for 2nd.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  134. It’s just the expected regression to the mean, SPQR.

    Dmac (799abd)

  135. Intelliology, it’s ironic that you come here, toss a few snotty insults at me, and yet still manage to never once address the substance of the post (or questions posed). While it’s impolite and childish of you to insult me, I completely understand that that is how you take cover when unable to actually address the issue. But it is bad form and doesn’t reflect well upon you.

    It might be helpful to double your efforts to actually re-read the post, think about it, and then participate accordingly. It’s kind’ve the point of the whole exercise…but, if you have nothing thoughtful or viable or challenging (or even humorous!)to add to the discussion, then perhaps simply keeping silent might be best. At times, there are posts here that I really can’t respond to, either because I’m not knowledgeable enough, I can’t give it the attention and thought it deserves, or most importantly, the deeper learning comes if I silently glean from others. That can indeed be the most prudent choice.

    Dana (1e5ad4)

  136. Dana, why bother? He’s here to goad and distract, and being ugly is the easiest way to get that.

    Cheney has Obama’s political apparatus tied up in knots. He looks more and more credible and is a constant reminder of what a real administration looks like. Cheney may not be pretty, but he really highlights the weakness in the Obama administration. That’s something most democrats cannot resist angrily attacking without addressing what got them so worked up.

    You almost never see democrats attack Mccain or Romney. Always Cheney or Palin or someone else whose passion and directness embarrass the softies. If Cheney didn’t inspire that kind of thing, I’d frankly be nervous.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  137. I however do not see it as hypocrisy. It is a tactic or more simply camouflage. There is no hypocrisy because there is no love of free speech by the Left (even if a pawn of the Left thinks there is, or professes there is). Indeed, leftist philosophy demands a suppression of free speech, preferably in a manner that will not alert the opposition until it is too late.

    Pons @ 130, you are perhaps a tad more cynical than I am. I have spoken with two (absolutely anecdotal) liberal colleagues about the Tebow ad and they were appalled at NOW attempts to squelch Focus on the Family’s right to be heard – in any format. Ardent fems, they were however uncomfortable with the screeching against the ad and felt it didn’t accurately represent the left. So, I give an inch that there are some who might actually believe that freedom of speech is indeed for everyone. To assume they must be pawns is rather jaded thinking but I see your point, however don’t hold it quite as stridently.

    Now it’s interesting to consider that a philosophy demands a suppression – in spite of what it claims – and that the idea is one of subtle manipulation. This perhaps might fall under the heading: Things Lacking Transparency, which – quelle surprise! – dovetails nicely with our current administration. Six degrees of separation…

    I think our nation has been through worse times: the Civil War, the Great Depression, WWII, etc. Maybe our nation has always been a single event away from destruction throughout most of our history; every generation tested. Perhaps we are in such a time now; perhaps this is our test.

    I think we would have to define “worse times”. Certainly what you’ve listed are at the top of the list, however, these times are much more subtle in their devastation: Rather than “seeing” bloodshed, or great migrations due to hunger, etc., ours is, on the surface, a thriving society, evolving and expanding. Yet the quieter and still incalculable danger is what is taking place under the surface, the attempted shifting of the philosophies that have been the under girding of our Republic.

    And if it is a random moment of “just a bunch of dumb punks that got lucky and captured the WH and Congress when no one was looking”, it’s still something to be very concerned with. They can do irreparable harm in their short season. More havoc has been wreaked by wayward yutes intent on rebelling and sticking it to the man while being motivated by little more their own sense of self-righteousness, impulsiveness and limited ability to see the big picture. They are precious in their own eyes. And that is dangerous for us all.

    Dana (1e5ad4)

  138. Pons @ 130, you are perhaps a tad more cynical than I am.

    Thanks for being polite Dana, but I was more than a tad cynical. Please allow me to adjust.

    Almost certainly, most Americans (liberal, conservative or otherwise) do believe in Free Speech and the Principles of Liberty, albeit with honest disagreement on the “details”.

    I was clumsily referring to the extreme elements on the Left. By pawns, I meant those who are intolerant of all but their own ideology, even if undisputed moral or rational arguments dictate otherwise. Even when confronted by logic which would normally demand an incredulous mental posture, pawns are able to dismiss any such qualms or doubts.

    Lenin referred to such as useful idiots. For example, Triumph could not answer your question about Free Speech without admitting hypocrisy or devolve into some sort of irrational rant. He chose to cut and run rather than defend an indefensible position. Intelliology chose to engage you with immature remarks (although upon re-reading the thread, I cannot figure out why, because at that point you had barely addressed her, and in a most gentle manner). In both cases, they refused to address a possible deficiency within their chosen political philosophy. In short, they chose to ignore or belittle, rather than enrich their own thinking.

    The way you expressed the danger to the nation is one of the best assessments I have ever read and after much consideration, I am now adopting it:

    Yet the quieter and still incalculable danger is what is taking place under the surface, the attempted shifting of the philosophies that have been the under girding of our Republic.

    Well said!

    Pons Asinorum (b14377)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.7596 secs.