Tuesday, July 18, 2006
Much Ado About Not Much
As expected, the media is making a big stink, so to speak, about President Bush's latest unscripted moment. The China Daily prints a duplicitous headline: "Bush Curses Hezbollah During G-8 Luncheon" He didn't, though he would have been right if he had.
So what did he actually say? "The irony is, what they really need to do is to get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this shit, and it’s over.” Big deal. I'll bet money you've heard worse at work or school. I hear worse on the bus or walking down the street. Most of us have probably said worse.
And what's with all this bogus righteous indignation from the left anyway? Aren't they the defenders of free speech? If it's good for Howard Stern and Janet Jackson then why not W? Hypocrisy, thy name is liberal nutcase.
Our kids are subjected to this kind of talk almost daily. My wife has to hear it in stores and restauarants. So please, don't expect me to get worked up over the President using this vulgarity in a private, candid conversation with a friend and ally. You want to get mad? Get mad about the media eavesdropping on two world leaders' discussion. I'm not nearly as worried about the NSA's surveillance of telecommunications as I am about the media's delight in telling us everything they hear. This was just a candid lunchtime chat. But in recent months the media has revealed classified information and programs, damaging our national security efforts.
The media wants to make a major issue out the imaginary outing of a "covert" agent who was telling all her friends and neighbors she worked for the CIA. At the same time the New York Times admits to revealing classified government programs and efforts. To quote the greatest President of the 20th century, "under World War II circumstances, [they] would have been charged with treason."
If there's a story here it isn't the President's language. I'll go so far as to say that Bush's choice of expletive will endear him even more to most Americans. As always, his demeanor and language, rustic though they may be, reassure us that he is more like us than most in politics. You can picture Bush chatting with you just the way he chats with Tony Blair. And that's a good thing. ¶ Tuesday, July 18, 2006
So what did he actually say? "The irony is, what they really need to do is to get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this shit, and it’s over.” Big deal. I'll bet money you've heard worse at work or school. I hear worse on the bus or walking down the street. Most of us have probably said worse.
And what's with all this bogus righteous indignation from the left anyway? Aren't they the defenders of free speech? If it's good for Howard Stern and Janet Jackson then why not W? Hypocrisy, thy name is liberal nutcase.
Our kids are subjected to this kind of talk almost daily. My wife has to hear it in stores and restauarants. So please, don't expect me to get worked up over the President using this vulgarity in a private, candid conversation with a friend and ally. You want to get mad? Get mad about the media eavesdropping on two world leaders' discussion. I'm not nearly as worried about the NSA's surveillance of telecommunications as I am about the media's delight in telling us everything they hear. This was just a candid lunchtime chat. But in recent months the media has revealed classified information and programs, damaging our national security efforts.
The media wants to make a major issue out the imaginary outing of a "covert" agent who was telling all her friends and neighbors she worked for the CIA. At the same time the New York Times admits to revealing classified government programs and efforts. To quote the greatest President of the 20th century, "under World War II circumstances, [they] would have been charged with treason."
If there's a story here it isn't the President's language. I'll go so far as to say that Bush's choice of expletive will endear him even more to most Americans. As always, his demeanor and language, rustic though they may be, reassure us that he is more like us than most in politics. You can picture Bush chatting with you just the way he chats with Tony Blair. And that's a good thing. ¶ Tuesday, July 18, 2006
Comments:
<< Home
James,
Welcome back! You know the hypocrisy of the left is that, as Jesus said of the Pharisees, they will strain at a gnat to swallow a camel.
So, according to the leftist media, saying the word shit is so much more over the top than having your dick sucked by a whore while you are on the phone discussing matters of national importance (for those who don't get the reference: I'm refering to the liberal's darling, President Clinton).
Yeah. Like that really makes sense.
Liberals are hypocrites, whiners and losers all around. I for one am glad to hear the President use a word that befits the actions of such demon possesed, bloodthirsty, Islamo-Facist' terrorists; shit.
Bush is definately a cowboy who relates to a lot of America today, except for the bed wetting liberals.
Under Clinton's watch, we sent the message to Osama bin Laden that we were a "paper tiger". Under W's watch, we have sent a message to bin Laden that we are his demise via the corpse of Zarqawi, and all of the top al Qaeda/Taliban corpses that we have created.
Great post and welcome back!
Welcome back! You know the hypocrisy of the left is that, as Jesus said of the Pharisees, they will strain at a gnat to swallow a camel.
So, according to the leftist media, saying the word shit is so much more over the top than having your dick sucked by a whore while you are on the phone discussing matters of national importance (for those who don't get the reference: I'm refering to the liberal's darling, President Clinton).
Yeah. Like that really makes sense.
Liberals are hypocrites, whiners and losers all around. I for one am glad to hear the President use a word that befits the actions of such demon possesed, bloodthirsty, Islamo-Facist' terrorists; shit.
Bush is definately a cowboy who relates to a lot of America today, except for the bed wetting liberals.
Under Clinton's watch, we sent the message to Osama bin Laden that we were a "paper tiger". Under W's watch, we have sent a message to bin Laden that we are his demise via the corpse of Zarqawi, and all of the top al Qaeda/Taliban corpses that we have created.
Great post and welcome back!
Clay -- Liberals are hypocrites? Does that mean conservatives are angels? I don't think hypocracy has a political ideology.
James, I don't think people oppose the President's use of foul language in general. I personally have no problem if he curses in private. However, as the old saying goes "Ceaser should be above reproach." He is the friggin' leader of the free world; he should set an example and show a bit more professionalism.
I think in a military environment, people are more comfortable with cursing on-the-job. But every other job I have been in, it is a big negative.
My big question is -- Bush's language was broadcast on public television. If he is insistent on having an FCC commissioner that will fine Howard Stern for his language and punish CBS for Janet's "wardrobe malfunction," can't we expect POTUS to refrain as well?
James, I don't think people oppose the President's use of foul language in general. I personally have no problem if he curses in private. However, as the old saying goes "Ceaser should be above reproach." He is the friggin' leader of the free world; he should set an example and show a bit more professionalism.
I think in a military environment, people are more comfortable with cursing on-the-job. But every other job I have been in, it is a big negative.
My big question is -- Bush's language was broadcast on public television. If he is insistent on having an FCC commissioner that will fine Howard Stern for his language and punish CBS for Janet's "wardrobe malfunction," can't we expect POTUS to refrain as well?
# posted by 
:
Wednesday, July 19, 2006 7:19:00 AM
:
Wednesday, July 19, 2006 7:19:00 AM
Steve,
Yes, liberals are hypocrites. I don't know where you drew the "conservatives are angels" line from my comments. Maybe you made it up your self?
Yes liberals are hypocrites in their ire over Bush's use of the "s-word", and your "Ceasar should be above reproach just makes my point.
Let me see if I get the liberal's position on being "above reproach" correctly. Apparently, if you use the White House Oval Office to commit adultry, and if you then perjure yourself by lying under oath you are still acting "above reproach".
Ultra-leftist group moveon.org got it's start by trying to get Americans to forget what Clinton did and "move on" to focus on other things. After all, the President is above the rule of law. Right?
But, if a President goes and uses the "s-word" (the mildest of all curse words by the way) then according to liberals the shit has hit the fan and the President must pay for his crime!
Liberals can be entertaining with their childish behavior. They have been on a non-stop Bush is Hitler, Bush is a criminal roll every since he took office in 2000. We've heard nothing but nitpicking whining from them every since. And this latest is typical.
So, yes Steve, liberals are hypocrites. I rest my case.
Yes, liberals are hypocrites. I don't know where you drew the "conservatives are angels" line from my comments. Maybe you made it up your self?
Yes liberals are hypocrites in their ire over Bush's use of the "s-word", and your "Ceasar should be above reproach just makes my point.
Let me see if I get the liberal's position on being "above reproach" correctly. Apparently, if you use the White House Oval Office to commit adultry, and if you then perjure yourself by lying under oath you are still acting "above reproach".
Ultra-leftist group moveon.org got it's start by trying to get Americans to forget what Clinton did and "move on" to focus on other things. After all, the President is above the rule of law. Right?
But, if a President goes and uses the "s-word" (the mildest of all curse words by the way) then according to liberals the shit has hit the fan and the President must pay for his crime!
Liberals can be entertaining with their childish behavior. They have been on a non-stop Bush is Hitler, Bush is a criminal roll every since he took office in 2000. We've heard nothing but nitpicking whining from them every since. And this latest is typical.
So, yes Steve, liberals are hypocrites. I rest my case.
Clay,
I think you grossly misinterpreted my premise. My point wasn't that conservatives where hypocrites and liberals weren't. My point simply was that humanity is rife with hypocracy, and it is not confined to a political philosophy.
It appears, however, that you are too blinded by partisanship to see otherwhise.
Furthermore, I can think of many curse words more "mild" than the "S-word," such as the "d-word" and the "h-word."
I think you grossly misinterpreted my premise. My point wasn't that conservatives where hypocrites and liberals weren't. My point simply was that humanity is rife with hypocracy, and it is not confined to a political philosophy.
It appears, however, that you are too blinded by partisanship to see otherwhise.
Furthermore, I can think of many curse words more "mild" than the "S-word," such as the "d-word" and the "h-word."
# posted by :
Friday, July 21, 2006 3:45:00 PM
:
Friday, July 21, 2006 3:45:00 PM
Steve,
Again, where do you get the notion that I am "too blinded by partisanship to see otherwise". Are you making that up too?
Let me attempt to straighten out your misunderstanding. First, I am not a partisan Republican. I vote Republican because it is the lesser of two evils and comes the closest to possibly representing my conservative values.
Second, while I like President Bush, I am by no means a Bush synchophant. I disagree with quite a few things he has done and tried to do domestically. (i.e. the illegal immigration issue, his refusal to take the closing of our borders seriously, big government programs like the dog and pony show, "No Child Left Behind" etc)
The Democrat party has done nothing but name call, whine and nit pick ever since they lost the 2000 election. Evidently they aren't smart enough to notice that their spoiled, arrogant attitudes aren't helping them much, since they also lost again to Bush in 2004. As long as they keep acting the way they are and backing leftists they will continue to lose.
Also, saying that hypocrisy is a flaw that goes beyond party lines doesn't, in any way, detract from the obvious hypocrisy in trying to nail bush for using the "S-Word". (how it is worse than the "D-Word" and "H-Word", is beyone me, but like your attempt to relativize hypocrisy this also fails to work).
First, these words are hardly in the offensive league as the "G-D-Word", or the "F-Word", or the "M-F-Word".
Secondly, Clinton clearly did far worse. He actually committed a crime, and yet the Democrats were upset that any one would pursue the obvios justice that that cried out for, and yet now wants to get it panties in a wad over Bush's use of "S-Word", which is not a crime.
So, again Steve, yes the democrats are being hypocrites. And again, I rest my case.
Again, where do you get the notion that I am "too blinded by partisanship to see otherwise". Are you making that up too?
Let me attempt to straighten out your misunderstanding. First, I am not a partisan Republican. I vote Republican because it is the lesser of two evils and comes the closest to possibly representing my conservative values.
Second, while I like President Bush, I am by no means a Bush synchophant. I disagree with quite a few things he has done and tried to do domestically. (i.e. the illegal immigration issue, his refusal to take the closing of our borders seriously, big government programs like the dog and pony show, "No Child Left Behind" etc)
The Democrat party has done nothing but name call, whine and nit pick ever since they lost the 2000 election. Evidently they aren't smart enough to notice that their spoiled, arrogant attitudes aren't helping them much, since they also lost again to Bush in 2004. As long as they keep acting the way they are and backing leftists they will continue to lose.
Also, saying that hypocrisy is a flaw that goes beyond party lines doesn't, in any way, detract from the obvious hypocrisy in trying to nail bush for using the "S-Word". (how it is worse than the "D-Word" and "H-Word", is beyone me, but like your attempt to relativize hypocrisy this also fails to work).
First, these words are hardly in the offensive league as the "G-D-Word", or the "F-Word", or the "M-F-Word".
Secondly, Clinton clearly did far worse. He actually committed a crime, and yet the Democrats were upset that any one would pursue the obvios justice that that cried out for, and yet now wants to get it panties in a wad over Bush's use of "S-Word", which is not a crime.
So, again Steve, yes the democrats are being hypocrites. And again, I rest my case.
Clay, I am not making anything up. Your partisanship is evident in your comments. Just because you did not type the words "I am partisan" doesn't mean it isn't true.
You keep talking and saying the same thing over and over... but you don't LISTEN to what the other person is saying. You sre simply regurgitating right-wing talking points.
You are engaged in a debate about which party is better than the other, but the only person debating that is yourself. I have never made a judgement about one party or another in any one of these posts. I have simply said that hypocricy doesn't have a political party. Just as you criticize the Democrats for their critques of the President, you will find exmples of hypocricy in the Republican party as well.
I think the only one making a big deal of this story is you. The conversation about what Bush said was dropped days ago. Again, another example of how you are too blinded by ideology to engage in an real debate about what really matters in this country.
This is one of the things that bothers me about the blogosphere. It becomes a forum for vitriolic partisan squabbles that detract from the most important fact -- that there we are living in dangerous times that require our leaders to deal with serious issues. It is time we all focus on that.
You keep talking and saying the same thing over and over... but you don't LISTEN to what the other person is saying. You sre simply regurgitating right-wing talking points.
You are engaged in a debate about which party is better than the other, but the only person debating that is yourself. I have never made a judgement about one party or another in any one of these posts. I have simply said that hypocricy doesn't have a political party. Just as you criticize the Democrats for their critques of the President, you will find exmples of hypocricy in the Republican party as well.
I think the only one making a big deal of this story is you. The conversation about what Bush said was dropped days ago. Again, another example of how you are too blinded by ideology to engage in an real debate about what really matters in this country.
This is one of the things that bothers me about the blogosphere. It becomes a forum for vitriolic partisan squabbles that detract from the most important fact -- that there we are living in dangerous times that require our leaders to deal with serious issues. It is time we all focus on that.
# posted by :
Saturday, July 22, 2006 5:17:00 PM
:
Saturday, July 22, 2006 5:17:00 PM
Steve,
I guess by "partisan", if you mean I vote republican, then yeah, by that definition I am partisan. But, as I have stated before I am a conservative, therefor I don't support liberalism and since the democrat party is dominated by liberalism I have no choice but vote republican, or throw my vote away to a third party.
I see nothing wrong with being partisan and standing by the party that closely reflects your political convictions as opposed to being wishy-washy and blown about by any wind that happens to blow by. That doesn't mean I am a Bush synchophant nor a republican synchophant. As I stated earlier there is plenty of issues I have with Bush and the republicans.
As to hypocricy from the republican party, I'm sure you're right. But you miss my point. The democrats have been whining and name calling and nitpicking Bush every since he took office back in 2000, and this latest nitpicking over the s word just continues their pathetic game plan.
I responded to it, and you waxed philosphic over the fact that hypocracy is everywhere, to which I agree, but it sounds like you are using it to say so don't expose it or call anyone out on it.
And that is intellectual laziness not worthy of consideration.
I posted comments exposing the hypocracy of their concern over Bush's use of "s word" compared to Clinton's crimes in office all of which you call "saying the same thing over and over again", as oppose to actually providing any counter response. As for regurgitating "right wing talking points" again this statement is puzzling. Do you expect me to make left wing points? Why would you be surprised that as a conservative I make conservative points. At least I'm making points, as oppose to just making smug little comments like you.
You said:
"I think the only one making a big deal of this story is you. The conversation about what Bush said was dropped days ago. Again, another example of how you are too blinded by ideology to engage in an real debate about what really matters in this country."
You apparently thought it was important too, hence your, "everybody are hypocrits" comment.
As for it being a big deal, I'm not sure what you are getting at. Let's see I am a conservative, so I provide counter arguments against the left on my blog and other conservative blogs, so why that calls for you to think it's a big deal to me is puzzling.
As for me being blinded by my idealogy and so unable to engage in any real debate about what matters to this country, this just means, that a. you obviously haven't read my blog, b. It's a cheap shot that is easy to make, since you yourself don't specify what matters to this country.
You said:
"This is one of the things that bothers me about the blogosphere. It becomes a forum for vitriolic partisan squabbles that detract from the most important fact -- that there we are living in dangerous times that require our leaders to deal with serious issues. It is time we all focus on that."
This is another cop out on your part. There is nothing wrong with conservatives having blogs and liberals having blogs. The blog is a perfect forum for them to express their view point on where America is headed. The partisan squabbles (there's that word again, you seem to have trouble with any one who stands behind their convictions) aren't detracting in any way from the dangerous times we live in nor the serious issues that our leadership need to focus on, to the contrary that is what they do.
This statement you make either means you are ignorant of what political blogs contain or you are being disengenous. Alot of your comments make me wonder whether you are a liberal. You don't actually respond to any of my arguments you just call me names and make generalized philosphical statement and spout the viewpoint that we need to move on.
Either way your statement just proves my point. The democrats whining over Bush's use of the s word instead of focusing on the dangerous times we live in makes my original comment and the other ones dead on. Thanks for making my point.
Again the democrats are hypocrits.
Post a Comment
I guess by "partisan", if you mean I vote republican, then yeah, by that definition I am partisan. But, as I have stated before I am a conservative, therefor I don't support liberalism and since the democrat party is dominated by liberalism I have no choice but vote republican, or throw my vote away to a third party.
I see nothing wrong with being partisan and standing by the party that closely reflects your political convictions as opposed to being wishy-washy and blown about by any wind that happens to blow by. That doesn't mean I am a Bush synchophant nor a republican synchophant. As I stated earlier there is plenty of issues I have with Bush and the republicans.
As to hypocricy from the republican party, I'm sure you're right. But you miss my point. The democrats have been whining and name calling and nitpicking Bush every since he took office back in 2000, and this latest nitpicking over the s word just continues their pathetic game plan.
I responded to it, and you waxed philosphic over the fact that hypocracy is everywhere, to which I agree, but it sounds like you are using it to say so don't expose it or call anyone out on it.
And that is intellectual laziness not worthy of consideration.
I posted comments exposing the hypocracy of their concern over Bush's use of "s word" compared to Clinton's crimes in office all of which you call "saying the same thing over and over again", as oppose to actually providing any counter response. As for regurgitating "right wing talking points" again this statement is puzzling. Do you expect me to make left wing points? Why would you be surprised that as a conservative I make conservative points. At least I'm making points, as oppose to just making smug little comments like you.
You said:
"I think the only one making a big deal of this story is you. The conversation about what Bush said was dropped days ago. Again, another example of how you are too blinded by ideology to engage in an real debate about what really matters in this country."
You apparently thought it was important too, hence your, "everybody are hypocrits" comment.
As for it being a big deal, I'm not sure what you are getting at. Let's see I am a conservative, so I provide counter arguments against the left on my blog and other conservative blogs, so why that calls for you to think it's a big deal to me is puzzling.
As for me being blinded by my idealogy and so unable to engage in any real debate about what matters to this country, this just means, that a. you obviously haven't read my blog, b. It's a cheap shot that is easy to make, since you yourself don't specify what matters to this country.
You said:
"This is one of the things that bothers me about the blogosphere. It becomes a forum for vitriolic partisan squabbles that detract from the most important fact -- that there we are living in dangerous times that require our leaders to deal with serious issues. It is time we all focus on that."
This is another cop out on your part. There is nothing wrong with conservatives having blogs and liberals having blogs. The blog is a perfect forum for them to express their view point on where America is headed. The partisan squabbles (there's that word again, you seem to have trouble with any one who stands behind their convictions) aren't detracting in any way from the dangerous times we live in nor the serious issues that our leadership need to focus on, to the contrary that is what they do.
This statement you make either means you are ignorant of what political blogs contain or you are being disengenous. Alot of your comments make me wonder whether you are a liberal. You don't actually respond to any of my arguments you just call me names and make generalized philosphical statement and spout the viewpoint that we need to move on.
Either way your statement just proves my point. The democrats whining over Bush's use of the s word instead of focusing on the dangerous times we live in makes my original comment and the other ones dead on. Thanks for making my point.
Again the democrats are hypocrits.
<< Home
