Saturday, July 20, 2002
I normally wouldn't mention Ann Coulter becuase she's such an easy target, but I find her reasoning interesting. From Donahue on Thursday:
DONAHUE: So you’re a name caller yourself. You acknowledge that.
COULTER: I don’t have any problem with invective. The title of my book is “Slander,” not “Invective.” When I call somebody a name, I assure you, it’s true.
Katie Couric is a Nazi, Clinton, crazy white trash hick who is like a serial kiler, Norm Mineta a "stink Bomb" who "hates America", etc...
Thats invective, not name calling. And she assues us its true that Norman Mineta hates America and Katie Couric is a nazi.
Man she's screwy. (That wasn't me calling her a name, I was using invective)
Friday, July 19, 2002
Ben Frit'z at the American Prospect pretty much echoes what I said about Donahue a few days ago. It is however, only 4 days into his run, so a little leeway should be given. And according to Salon, Donahue had over a million viewers his first night.
Wednesday, July 17, 2002
Donahue needs to start cracking heads.
Tuesdays edition of Donahue was a sight to see. Watching what started of as a decent debate about the awful Patriot Act devolved into the conservative of the group resorting to lies and Mcarthyite smears. And all the while Phil sat there with a bemused look on his face.
Case in point this exchange:
MAY: Look, no constitutional rights have been taken away from any U.S. citizen or anybody else. But understand that people who are in this country...
GOODMAN: That’s just untrue.
Exactly. That is flat out untrue. Yet May has the temerity to say something he knows for a fact is false.
MAY: Name one American citizen whose rights have been taken away.
Name one.
GOODMAN: Mr. Padilla. Mr. Padilla is now being held. He’s an American citizen. Mr. Hamdi is now being held. Neither of them are being given a right to a trial, a right to even see their lawyer. Their rights are being violated, and that’s what’s going to happen-not only to them, but to many Americans.
MAY: We are at war. We’re at war with people who killed...
GOODMAN: I just gave you an example. You asked for some examples.
(CROSSTALK)
MAY: And these are enemies...
GOODMAN: So they’re bad people. Right. So they don’t have a right to go to court? They don’t have a...
(CROSSTALK)
MAY: Mr. Goodman, their rights have not been taken away. The Supreme Court decided in 1942, eight Germans came across. They were treated the same way.
Yes. their rights were taken away, thats how they were treated. That's just a commonly accepted fact. Padilla is a United States Citizen whose constitutional rights were also taken away. There's no room to argue that point.
MAY: If someone like Mr. Goodman was fighting World War II, he would have sent our soldiers to shore at Normandy with subpoenas to Mirandize all the German soldiers.
German soldiers were uniformed soldiers fighting for their military and were classified as legal combatants and fell under the Geneva Convention. The ENTIRE argument is regarding how we treat unlawful combatants, the exact OPPOSITE of German soldiers on the shores of Normandy. This is a blatant distortion of the debate and a total smear against Mr. Goodman and May knows it. This is not rational debate. This Is Ann Coulter territory. Suffice it to say the dishonest arguments and smear continued.
My point is this. If you're going to have right wing hacks from some nebulous think tank on, be prepared. Don't let them get away with this stuff. We have enough Limbaughs and Hannity's getting away with blatant distortions and lies. I wish Phil Could just make his show an oasis where the truth is respected. So far he's not up to the task.
Monday, July 15, 2002
Why is Trafficant still allowed in Congress?
The man, despite being a certifiable fruitcake for years, is now a CONVICTED FELON, yet the Congressional Ethics Committee is "discussing" whether he should be expelled?
If being a convicted felon isn't enough, I would guess the paranoid filled rant while testifying before them would seal the deal.
Why I hate political quiz's.
According to this site, a Republican friend of mine who is against vouchers, against an absolute right to gun ownership, against missile defense, pro choice and for hate crimes laws applying to sexual orientation (he's a connecticut Republican, they're a little different) is considered a "moderate right conservative".
Kinda screwy huh?
Me? I'm considered a moderate libertarian. Which is actually kind of accurate.
But listen to how skewed the questions are. If you think we should "Teach moral standards In Public Schools" that means you believe:
Judeo-Christian values are American values. Belief in God is what America was founded upon, so praying in school or other public places does not violate the separation of church and state. "
Huh?!?!?!
Sunday, July 14, 2002
