Litterbugs
"Out of Context"
Friday, December 23, 2005
By John Gibson
(bold by Republicus)
A friend once cautioned me about going into the opinion game.
"All you ever do," he said, "is spend time defending your opinion."
At the time I started "My Word" I thought about what my friend told me and thought, "Well, I won't say anything I can't defend."
(note by Republicus: Ditto.)
That takes some doing because if you're talking on TV and talking on the radio — which I now do everyday — you end up saying things you don't entirely mean or you wish you could rephrase. But even so, I went into this thinking I could defend myself even through some garble because I think I remain fairly consistent in what I say.
(note by Republicus: Ditto.)
All this got a little deeper when I published books. For the last one, "The War on Christmas," I was especially careful because I knew this would be a touchy subject.
But still I never really expected what has actually happened.
With the book, people condemn it without having read it. They have me saying things I didn't say, and call me names for saying things I didn't say.
That has redoubled with the radio. Now I have people calling me names on television. Names like "fathead" and "the worst something or other" for things I really did not say.
(note by Republicus: How about "Freakin hypocritter" (sic), "fascist," "freakin' fascist," and "anglofascist?")
Or if the words were actually uttered, they were taken wildly out of context.
Who does this? These blogs you find on the side of the road on the information highway. They're like litter. You don't notice as you're speeding by but if you stop you see how ugly it all is.
(note by Republicus: LOL! Yes.)
..Oh well, the slings and arrows.
Merry Christmas and Happy Hanukkah to all and to all a good night.
That's My Word.
Ditto. :)
posted by John | 5:28 AM
15 Comments:
Me hates John Gibson. :)
"With the book, people condemn it without having read it."
It is interesting that people will do that when they hold up prejudices.
Also, There goes Lee Harvey using that HATE word again. He didn't hear a word you said. He saw "John Gibson" and turned the blinders on.
Ya, I see what side of the fence he sits on and it isn't anywhere near the middle, either.
What kind of person would "hate" John Gibson?
The same kind of person who "hopes" that Dubya gets assassinated.
Kelly said:
"'With the book, people condemn it without having read it.'
It is interesting that people will do that when they hold up prejudices."
The Left has a cliquish mentality. I've heard many Leftists viscerally condemn conservatives stalwarts like William Buckley Jr. (one Bush-Hater emailed me and called him a "whore"), and Right-Wing populists like Rush
Limbaugh, Anne Coulter, Sean Hannity, and now a boyscout like John Gibson--not to mention snidely referring to the conservative-leaning Foxnews as *fauxnews* and the conservative *Washington Times* as "the moonie paper."
Most of the little sniveling Lefties who sneer about them, when asked, never heard a Limbaugh broadcast, never read Buckley's *National Review* or read any of his erudite books, and the same goes for the rest.
They're told to avoid them but to vociferously condemn them by their Leftist gurus or Democratic den-masters or whoever the hell enthralls them and they fall into lockstep and obey like the mindless, angry herd they are, and are always ready to ridicule anyone who feels at home or in sync with any of them with an adolescent, peer pressure dynamic:
"EVERYONE knows about Foxnews and Rush Limbaugh! Are you unhip? EVERYONE knows about Bush and the neocants! Are you a fascist? What's the matter with you? And it's cool to hate John Gibson! Just about ANYONE with half a brain does!"
You disgust Republicus, Lee Harvey.
As my European mother would say (and actually HAS, heh heh): "You're dees-GOST-ing."
And BTW, Lee Harvey, Republicus can in full faith tell you that it is YOU and your political ilk--the far left, Bush-hating, unhinged FRINGE-- WHO ARE PART OF A VERY FAST SHRINKING MINORITY.
Why?
Because EVERYONE with half a brain is beginning to figure you out.
Merry Christmas.
"Me hates John Gibson. :)"
You know...(LOL!!!)...
Ah, forget it.
Here's to Lee Harvey: BAAAAAH!!!!!!
HUMBUG!
Oh, you meant "BAAAAH!" as in sheep? lol
HUMBUG works too. Actually, that's pretty funny!
Me thinks Jeff should be tied to a chair and forced to look at that pic of John Gibson-- poster-sized-- on the wall in front of him for, like, an hour or two.
Merry Christmas, btw.
Thank you Kelly. You too. :)
You too, Jeff.
Back at ya guys, Merry Christmas
Now you know, even at Christmas, let this one go... :)I know, I know, whatever, lol
Steve Chapman
Beyond the imperial presidency
Published December 25, 2005
President Bush is a bundle of paradoxes. He thinks the scope of the federal government should be limited but the powers of the president should not. He wants judges to interpret the Constitution as the framers did, but doesn't think he should be constrained by their intentions.
He attacked Al Gore for trusting government instead of the people, but he insists anyone who wants to defeat terrorism must put absolute faith in the man at the helm of government.
His conservative allies say Bush is acting to uphold the essential prerogatives of his office. Vice President Cheney says the administration's secret eavesdropping program is justified because "I believe in a strong, robust executive authority, and I think that the world we live in demands it."
But the theory boils down to a consistent and self-serving formula: What's good for George W. Bush is good for America, and anything that weakens his power weakens the nation. To call this an imperial presidency is unfair to emperors.
Even people who should be on Bush's side are getting queasy. David Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union, says in his efforts to enlarge executive authority, Bush "has gone too far."
He's not the only one who feels that way. Consider the case of Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen arrested in 2002 on suspicion of plotting to set off a "dirty bomb." For three years, the administration said he posed such a grave threat that it had the right to detain him without trial as an enemy combatant. In September, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit agreed.
But then, rather than risk a review of its policy by the Supreme Court, the administration abandoned its hard-won victory and indicted Padilla on comparatively minor criminal charges. When it asked the 4th Circuit Court for permission to transfer him from military custody to jail, though, the once-cooperative court flatly refused.
In a decision last week, the judges expressed amazement that the administration suddenly would decide Padilla could be treated like a common purse snatcher--a reversal that, they said, comes "at substantial cost to the government's credibility." The court's meaning was plain: Either you were lying to us then, or you are lying to us now.
If that's not enough to embarrass the president, the opinion was written by conservative darling J. Michael Luttig--who just a couple of months ago was on Bush's short list for the Supreme Court. For Luttig to question Bush's use of executive power is like Bill O'Reilly announcing that there's too much Christ in Christmas.
This is hardly the only example of the president demanding powers he doesn't need. When American-born Saudi Yasser Hamdi was captured in Afghanistan, the administration also detained him as an enemy combatant rather than entrust him to the criminal justice system.
But when the Supreme Court said he was entitled to a hearing where he could present evidence on his behalf, the administration decided that was way too much trouble. It freed him and put him on a plane back to Saudi Arabia, where he may plot jihad to his heart's content. Try to follow this logic: Hamdi was too dangerous to put on trial but not too dangerous to release.
The disclosure that the president authorized secret and probably illegal monitoring of communications between people in the United States and people overseas again raises the question: Why?
The government easily could have gotten search warrants to conduct electronic surveillance of anyone with the slightest possible connection to terrorists. The court that handles such requests hardly ever refuses. But Bush bridles at the notion that the president should ever have to ask permission of anyone.
He claims he can ignore the law because Congress granted permission when it authorized him to use force against Al Qaeda. But we know that can't be true. Atty. Gen. Alberto Gonzales says the administration didn't ask for a revision of the law to give the president explicit power to order such wiretaps because Congress--a Republican Congress, mind you--wouldn't have agreed. So the administration decided: Who needs Congress?
What we have now is not a robust executive but a reckless one. At times like this, it's apparent that Cheney and Bush want more power not because they need it to protect the nation, but because they want more power. Another paradox: In their conduct of the war on terror, they expect our trust, but they can't be bothered to earn it.
Post a Comment
<< Home