Comments on: Fundamentalists DO Think Alike

By: duros62

duros62 — Sat, 18 Feb 2006 17:02:46 +0000

he gave a briefer response that did not provide as much detail but did not contradict his postion.
No, he just kinda softened it when it appeared that it might point to Rove.
Bush es original statement and his follow-up both contained the proviso that a law had to be broken.
Dude, ratting out a CIA operative is illegal, plain & simple. It don’t get much clearer than that.
No one has told me why Robert Novak isn’t in jail, either. Why is that? Nor has anyone commented on his close ties with Rove.

By: Dugger

Dugger — Fri, 17 Feb 2006 21:02:38 +0000

No. Its not. I’m sure Bubba regrets his “is’ remark but this is just the media trying to find a short cut “gotcha” to discredit Bush.

I will always wonder why the left argue against the war on its merits instead of the imagined motives of its architects.

Dugger

By: Bushwacked

Bushwacked — Fri, 17 Feb 2006 20:02:25 +0000

Sounds like it’s the same thing as “it depends on what the meaning of is is”. Whew, glad that ’s all straight now.

By: Quaker in a Basement

Quaker in a Basement — Fri, 17 Feb 2006 17:02:51 +0000

JD – I never said there were no differences. I’m just taking issue with the usual excuse makers who claim “there’s no comparison.”

By: Dugger

Dugger — Fri, 17 Feb 2006 17:02:48 +0000

BW, They do it a lot but I didn’t sauy all. In fact i see two progressive camps: an older ideological camp thats a little less Bush-hate oriented versus a newer, more dominant, emotional camp that is much more negatively focused.

And being not fully forthcoming is not ideal, maybe not even good, but it hardly warrants assumptions of ‘lie’ and ‘conspircacy’.

And your claims of ‘lie’ are not furthered by using an unrebutted Abramoff as a factual, no-need-to-verify source.
As to your infreence that he lied about firing a leaker, Bush’es original statement and his follow-up both contained the proviso that a law had to be broken. At another point, in a press conference he gave a briefer response that did not provide as much detail but did not contradict his postion. There was no lie in any of that. Research it carefully (other than Media Matters, for sure) and you will see no lie.

Dugger

By: Bushwacked

Bushwacked — Fri, 17 Feb 2006 17:02:13 +0000

“The problem is that the de rigueur response of the left has become lie or conspiracy – rather than mistake or not the best way, heres a better one.”

You complain that all progressives do is scream LIE, when on the other side there has been an obvious loss of credibilty when it comes to being forthcoming on even simple matters. This adminstration has handed the other side ammunition over and over again with half statements and untruths about anything that presents a PR problem.

Scott McClellan first says Bush “never knew Jack Abromoff personally” and only met him at holiday events. This has now evolved to pictures showing Bush and Abramoff together and Abramoff’s claims that Bush even joked with him about his kids. Then we have Plamegate and Bush first saying that he will fire anyone caught leaking but now says he wont comment on a pending investigation … blah blah, blah. And so on and so on.

By: Dugger

Dugger — Fri, 17 Feb 2006 16:02:26 +0000

Mitter, Sequence is important. The Admin makes a statement or something happens. Progressives scream LIE! and propose rank conspiracy theories (you can’t deny that). I question then the charges of lie and conspiracy. That doesn’t mean I necessarily believe everything I’m told by the Admin is correct, but if it isn’t, I have to see pretty clear cut evidence to believe lie or conspiracy rather than mistake , poor communication etc. The problem is that the de rigueur response of the left has become ‘lie ‘ or ‘conspiracy’ – rather than mistake or ‘not the best way, heres a better one’.

And if it makes you feel better or superior, you can call me those names. Won’t do anything but make my argument easier to make.

Dugger, Have always questioned the wisdom of Iraq, not the motives of the bi-partisan sponsors

By: stick

stick — Fri, 17 Feb 2006 13:02:21 +0000

Bryan-
“here in the UK, councils come out with nonsense like you ve mentions, then the local papers report it, then the Nationals. Then a few locals write to complain, usually the people the edict was designed so as not to cause them offence, and the whole thing is dropped, except in the minds of a few nutcases”

So is the “freedom fries” thing is closer to what you describe in the UK or what the Iranians did in renaming pastries? Or is what the Iranians have done closer to what happened in the UK?
This is just silly. Oliver could just have easily compared the mullahs to socialist because they both want to minutely control the econmic lives of the people they rule.

By: JD

JD — Fri, 17 Feb 2006 13:02:19 +0000

Religious edicts ? WTF ?

Quaker – I think that the fundamental difference is that American citizens did not riot and murder each other over the french fries.

By: stick

stick — Fri, 17 Feb 2006 09:02:01 +0000

C’mon, Oliver. The fascist “freedom fries” directive of the US gov consisted of changing the name of fries in the cafeteria of the house of reps. And I bet if you would have asked for french fries they’d have given ‘em to you anyway.

By: bryan

bryan — Fri, 17 Feb 2006 08:02:33 +0000

Stick, here in the UK, councils come out with nonsense like you’ve mentions, then the local papers report it, then the Nationals. Then a few locals write to complain, usually the people the edict was designed so as not to cause them offence, and the whole thing is dropped, except in the minds of a few nutcases, who hoard each thing as an example of ‘PC gone mad’. They usually read the Express or the Mail.
The above two nationals deplored 24-hour liquor licencing with a passion when it first came out, but have nothing to say since drink-fuelled violence has so far been found to have reduced by about 20% compared to last year.

By: midderpidge

midderpidge — Fri, 17 Feb 2006 06:02:12 +0000

Why is it if someone doesn’t accept the crap explanations put out by the White House, people like Dugger call them Conspiracy Theorists? Can we call Dugger an “Unquestioning Twit” or “KoolAid Kid” for blindly accepting everything Bush & Co. says? Its not like the Bush Administration has a track record of accuracy, openness, honesty or integrity.

By: Bushwacked

Bushwacked — Fri, 17 Feb 2006 04:02:46 +0000

The only thing the names “Freedom Fries” and “Roses of Muhammad” have in common is that they were both very stupid. But if it makes them feel better and calms the inmates in the asylm who really cares. Anyway, look on the “bright side”. Better that they are spending more time making up names for food instead of killing people.

By: Oliver Willis

Oliver Willis — Fri, 17 Feb 2006 04:02:39 +0000

Yes, stick, local town councils in England are exactly the same as the ruling bodies of England and America issuing religious edicts. Yep, everything is equal in conland.

By: elrod

elrod — Fri, 17 Feb 2006 04:02:00 +0000

Last time I was at Geno’s Steaks in South Philly they called french fries “Freedom Fries”. That was the summer of 2004. Anybody know if that’s changed?

By: Quaker in a Basement

Quaker in a Basement — Fri, 17 Feb 2006 03:02:16 +0000

We don t care about his personal life , the mantra we heard from 1992 – 2000?

It was adopted by Republicans in 2000.

By: Quaker in a Basement

Quaker in a Basement — Fri, 17 Feb 2006 03:02:10 +0000

ther eis no comparison between those who did it in the U.S and those in Iran.

Yes, there is. And you just made that comparison.

By: stick

stick — Fri, 17 Feb 2006 02:02:32 +0000

It's odd that Oliver didn't link to this story about British schools banning hot-cross buns: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/03/16/nbuns16.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/03/16/ixhome.html Didn't fit his "conservatives are always behind repression" narrative, I guess.

By: Leroy Brown

Leroy Brown — Fri, 17 Feb 2006 01:02:31 +0000

Did I miss something? Why are we talking about Lynne Chaney?

I think we need to rename oil “Liberty Juice”. That’ll show the bastards!

By: Jadegold

Jadegold — Fri, 17 Feb 2006 00:02:51 +0000

I dunno, Frankie….well, not really.

I do know why.

Do you think Pam was at Rancho Shoot-A-78-Year-Old-Man-In-the-Face?