Spokesman.com | Blogs | A Matter Of Opinion

A Matter Of Opinion

Friday’s Loose Thread

Posted by Gary at 9:23 a.m. on October 9 Comments (49)

No Olympics, but a Nobel Peace Prize. What a difference a week makes. Instant analysis here.

Discuss this or other items of interest here.

49 comments on this post so far. Add yours!

Gary D Rhodes on October 09 at 9:55 a.m.
Did the Nobel vote for the 'Peace Prize' really take place less than two weeks after Obama was inaugurated?

Flag as inappropriate
John66 on October 09 at 10:26 a.m.
The nomination deadline was February 2009.
The committee made its final vote in October.

Flag as inappropriate
Gary Crooks on October 09 at 11:06 a.m.
<<Did the Nobel vote for the 'Peace Prize' really take place less than two weeks after Obama was inaugurated?>>

Who told you that?

Flag as inappropriate
Gary D Rhodes on October 09 at 11:27 a.m.
I didn't know if the nomination process was closed in February, or if the voting took place then, thus the question mark at the end of my question.

Flag as inappropriate
Chip Jones on October 09 at 12:25 p.m.
RE: nomination and award time line
I just heard on NPR that rusho limburger was peddling this one this morning. Limburger also said that the Nobel was given to the Pres to influence him to pull troops out of Afghanistan. Must be nice to just make stuff up and pass it off as ‘news.” I will stick with real reporting in newspapers and NPR (the old style MSM stuff).

Flag as inappropriate
Charlie on October 09 at 1:49 p.m.
According to Wikpedia, the nominations are due in by Feb. 3 for consideration, so I guess Rush was on the correct track. The nominees are then whittled down to about 15 and the governing body votes and the winner is..
The Nobel people who seem to be a very liberal group may be betting on a roll of the dice, Obama to match his deeds to his words. Good luck.

Flag as inappropriate
richard on October 09 at 7:10 p.m.
Gee Chip … I didn't know Rush was a “news” man as you state.

Do you “just make stuff up”?

Flag as inappropriate
spokelooneh on October 09 at 9:47 p.m.
How did the “liberal” Nobel Peace Prize people give one to Henry Kissinger, unindicted war criminal?

Flag as inappropriate
richard on October 09 at 9:55 p.m.
Is there a pattern here?

2007 - Al Gore

2009 - Barack Obama

What? John Kerry doesn’t get one? I guess he should have made a hysterical movie about the end of the world. Two of the last three recipients went to Democratic presidential candidates.

If you go back a few more years (Jimmy “the fool” Carter - 2002) you find that three of the last nine recipients were Democratic presidential candidates.

What gives? Did Bill Clinton not “ease tensions” with females of the world? Did he not make strides to end the “battle of the sexes” right there in the oval office? I am baffled.

But of course Bill never did spread the “peace” as did Yassir Arafat - who received the “big prize” in 1994. While Bill may have “stained” that infamous “blue dress,” Yassir Arafat “stained” the ground with the blood of hundreds - if not thousands - of Israelis. Makes you wonder why Hitler didn’t ever get nominated.

And who could find fault with the “noble’ Nobel committee who awarded the prize to Mikhail Gorbachev for his diligent efforts at ending the cold war? I guess Ronald Reagan had nothing to do with it. He never received any consideration.

And there were giant figures of the 20th Century - to paraphrase Red Buttons - “who never won a prize.” While untold millions around the world considered Pope John Paul II to be a “healing” force in the world, he made one fatal mistake. He dared to speak up for the hundreds of millions who never were. That was just too controversial for the “noble ones” who hand out the Peace Prize.

Actually John Paul II lost to … Yassir Arafat! He also lost to Rigoberta Menchu. Rigoberta who? You ask? She was the Guatemalan Indian who wrote the tortured story about how her impoverished family was severely oppressed by having to work the land owned by plantation owners of - you guessed it - European descent.

Her family, as described by the then 20-something Rigoberta, was run off the land they had worked their hands to the bone on. In breathtaking detail, she described the horror of watching her brother die from malnutrition and her parents slaughtered at the hands of a “right-wing” militia.

In fact, Ms. Menchu won world-wide praise for her extreme “courage” for speaking out against the colonialists who tortured her and her family. Not that there weren’t critics who believed she did not deserve the attention she received, but that “reactionary” criticism only entrenched Ms. Menchu’s status as a Marxist cult-hero - and as a recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize.

It made no difference to the Prize committee, that journalists from around the world found from neighbors, friends, municipal clerks in her village, and even her sister, that her book was a “book of lies.” Most of the “horror” of her life never happened.

Her parents weren’t forced off the land by a “right-wing” militia; but by their in-laws who had owned and worked the land with them. Her “dead” brother was running a successful business in a large city. Little Rigoberta was not too poor to go to school, as she claimed, but, according to her sister, received scholarships and spent most of her youth in a Catholic boarding school.

Long-story short; even after all these revelations, there was never any serious thought not to award Ms. Menchu the high honor of the Peace Prize. Nope, that was not to happen … not that year anyway!

Rigoberta Menchu was the absolute PERFECT recipient to receive the award … on the 500th anniversary of Columbus landing in the New World.

So it is only fitting that Barack Obama should win the Nobel Peace Prize - not for anything he has done, because he has done nothing. It is fitting because the Nobel Peace Prize has become a mere leftist popularity contest. It is about image, not substance; about leftist philosophy, not Peace. It is but a mirage.

Flag as inappropriate
Rifleman__Dodd on October 09 at 10:13 p.m.
An award Joe Shogan cant ever win.

Flag as inappropriate
Ron_the_Cop on October 10 at 4:21 a.m.
Richard,

The Nobel Peace Prize lost its value in my mind ever since it was awarded to AraTHErat.

Flag as inappropriate
Ron_the_Cop on October 10 at 4:36 a.m.
Richard,

Of the leftist bodies in the world this makes just as must sense as Libya being elected to chair the UN Human Rights Commission:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/267…

Flag as inappropriate
spoketucky on October 10 at 10:04 a.m.
Richie; Your comparison of Arafat and the Palestinians with Hitler and the Nazis is spot on all except for the facts that Germany wasn't invaded and occupied by a foreign army and systematically oppressed for the past sixty years.

I hope you realize Israel has violated more U.N. resolutions than Saddam Hussein did while leading Iraq. Where are the sanctions for them?

Flag as inappropriate
spoketucky on October 10 at 10:07 a.m.
I can't believe Reagan didn't get the Nobel Peace Prize immediately after leaving that summit with Gorbachev in Reykjavik.

Oh wait…

Flag as inappropriate
richard on October 10 at 12:06 p.m.
<<Richie; Your comparison of Arafat and the Palestinians with Hitler and the Nazis is spot on all except for the facts that Germany wasn't invaded and occupied by a foreign army and systematically oppressed for the past sixty years.>>

I guess leftists - just like Jihadists - can easily justify the killing of innocents. But that has always been the method of tyrannts and despots and mass murderers.

God knows the left has slaughtered hundreds of millions in the last century … but we don't discuss that in “polite company.”

Flag as inappropriate
richard on October 10 at 12:12 p.m.
Very interesting stat I just learned … in the last 41 speeches by our transformational leader … the word “I” was used 1200 times!

I didn't know there was an “I” in the word “team.”

Flag as inappropriate
Chip Jones on October 10 at 2:51 p.m.
Well Richard, here are a couple of definitions of “news.”

Information about recent events or happenings, especially as reported by newspapers, periodicals, radio, or television.

A report of recent events.

Glad to read that you agree that Limbaugh does not present news, that is, information about recent events.

Flag as inappropriate
richard on October 10 at 9:24 p.m.
Well Chip, the operative word in your definition is … “reported.” Rush is not a “reporter,” he is a commentator, just like a commentary on the opinion page in a newspaper … it isn't reporting.

Nobody considers Rush a reporter; least of all himself. Is keith Olberman a “reporter”? i think not.

Flag as inappropriate
richard on October 10 at 9:57 p.m.
And it makes perfect sense, Chip, that the pres got the Nobel Peace Prize by the committed leftists and apologists to “remind” him of his committment to be an anti-war president. That is called news “analysis.”

Can you offer one reason why he deserved this award? no one else can, other than platitudes built on hope.

Obama has created his own problems in this one, when he spoke out of both sides of his mouth during the campaign, when he promised the left he would get out of Iraq and he promised to the rational Americans that the “real fight” was in Afghanistan. And he would win that one.

While he is contemplating what to do his top General is saying he needs 40,000 troops to win the war, and Biden is saying we don't anymore troops. that is Obama; right between that rock and that hard place. but he has only himself to blame for that.

He now faces the prospect of losing the war just to placate his leftwing base (and his adulators in Europe) and lose all credibility with the rational Americans, or, providing his General what he needs to defeat our enemy and then being “stuffed” like a pig by his radical base.

Too bad for us, though, because we are now seeing exactly what we are all predicting before the election. This man is not qualified to lead this nation in any direction but straight down the drain. he had nothing to offer but words and image; and that is very difficult to balance without it being discovered that he is an empty suit when it comes to leadership. Unless, of course, you consider that the first lemming to go off the cliff, is a leader.

Sad state of affairs, especially to our young men and women who doing their best to defend this country while their commander contemplates how he can salvage this situation without losing political ground.

When Bush refused to follow the advice of General Sinseki, the left skewered him. Now the left is telling Obama he must refuse the advice of his General.

How funny is it when Saturday Night Live does a skit depicting Obama himself asking why he would get the award when he has done absolutely nothing!

Nada, zip!

Flag as inappropriate
Chip Jones on October 11 at 10:53 a.m.
Richard, nowhere did I say limburger was a news reporter (remember, it took only a couple of weeks for ESPN to get rid of him - he can not function in a setting where he is accountable to even a sports news organization).

Yes he is a commentator and he clearly has no sense of journalistic ethics. Your parsing of simple words rivals that of Bill Clinton (depends what the meaning of “is” is).

Webster's Dictionary definition of “report (n): 1(a): a common talk or account spread by common talk.”

You don't like the honor bestowed on the President, fine. As for the rest of your whining and hand wringing, we shall see. I hope he commits to win the war in Afghanistan, as failure would not be good for the U.S.

Flag as inappropriate
spoketucky on October 11 at 2:02 p.m.
richie: There isn't a “we” in team either. Your point?

Do you really want to compare the number of Palestinians killed to Zionists since 1948? Really? I'll provide the numbers just in case you chicken out. Two million Palestinians. The Israeli toll doesn't even approach 1% of that number. I love how you call a people resisting occupation by a foreign army terrorists. People with a firm grasp on reality understand it is the invader and occupier who are the terrorists.

Flag as inappropriate
spoketucky on October 11 at 2:10 p.m.
richie: Why do the 40,000 troops have to be U.S. personnel? Isn't the war on terrorism a global mission that we'd expect a shared commitment from our allies?

How many civilian contractors are on the ground in Afghanistan? I'll give you a hint: It's more than the 68,000 U.S. troops on the ground.

Don't we all just love the privatization of foreign wars? After all, they are doing such a bang up job. If the U.S. eliminated private contractors from performing duties normally performed by military personnel during wartime, there would have been need of a draft long ago. I'll guarantee if the children of the wealthy were being sent to fight and possibly be killed in Afghanistan or Iraq both conflicts would have been resolved long ago. We can't afford a generation long conflict with the extremists in the world of Islam. There are ways to marginalize them without draining the U.S. treasury and spilling the blood of our people.

Flag as inappropriate
richard on October 11 at 5:41 p.m.
Chip - so what was the point of your post about what Rush, when you said; “Must be nice to just make stuff up and pass it off as ‘news’.”?

You infered that what he said was news. nothing he says is news because he never represents himself as a reporter. And maybe you could clarify what you meant when you alleged he has “no sense of journalistic ethics?” I must warn you though, that a commentator is not really subject to “journalistic” standards the same as a … reporter. And does he really have less sense of journalistic ethics than say … Keith Olberman? They both make outlandish partisan statements and attacks.

Seems you just like to say rah, rah for those who provide “commentary” you can agree with, and then call Rush unethical because he gave an analysis you didn’t like. It clearly rankled you when he said that the awarding of the prize to Obama was done for political reasons. Sorry if that ruined your celebration; but I would say there is every indication that what Rush said was the truth.

Even the announcement of the award, said that he did not win it for anything he had done (well, duh!) but for what they “hoped” he would be able to do. The fact that Obama’s acceptance was given in a very sheepish manner, only strengthens that view. He knows the significance of the anti-American inclinations of the award givers; they were basically saying … we award Barack Obama the prize because his name … is not GW Bush.

You would have to be really naive to think there was nothing political when he won.

Flag as inappropriate
richard on October 11 at 6:49 p.m.
Nope, I have no interest in comparing deaths on either side. That is a moot point in reaching a resolution … and that is exactly why the radicals you seem to prefer are really not interested in a negotiated settlement, just as the corrupt and vile leaders of the PLO and Hamas and all the other militias that have ruled with an iron fist over their own people are also not interested in a negotiated settlement

But I absolutely challenge your assertion that the Israelis have killed 2 million Palestinians since 1948. And if you are going to cite Noam Chomsky; save the effort. Other than as a linguist, the man has no credibility with me or with most Americans.

No one knows the actual toll of Palestinians killed since 1948. But I will tell you that most of them were not killed by Israelis. How much internal war has gone on pitting Palestinian against Palestinian or Palestinians against Lebanese, Syrians and Jordanians?

There was the 1948 War, the 1967 War and the 1973 War, all of which involved Arab states and Palestinians invading Israel. Tell me when and where all those millions of deaths at the hands of Jews occurred?

You may or may not realize it - or you ignore it - but the Palestinians do not have a national military; they have militias run by “strong-men” with political connections. Whenever there were military clashes - regardless of what started it - between Israel and Palestinians - there were no uniformed Palestinians in the fight; they fought in street clothes or militia garb. Most of those have been tallied - cynically - as “civilian’ deaths.

Tucky … I am sure you are a bright guy, but I think you fail to understand how much propaganda you obviously take in with your readings of this conflict. Numbers can easily be skewed by dishonest sources - on both sides - but you hang your hat on the numbers and the arguments that are put out there by very partisan and radical groups.

These are often the same sources who claimed that there were a million or more Iraqi civilians killed by US troops. Those numbers were rejected by every reputable source, and they were used strictly for propaganda.

So cut to the chase, what is it you and Noam want the Israelis to do at this point? And did it matter that jews had not had a homeland for 2000 years and that everywhere they did land, they were persecuted and slaughtered.

After Europeans slaughtered 6 million jews in the 40’s, it was time the world gave them something of their own, and the land that was their ancient and religious heritage seemed the best place. There must be somewhere in this world were they can live in peace.

How many times are the Israelis supposed to be rebuffed in their attempts to settle this with a 2-state solution? And if that is not a valid resolution in the minds of the Palestinians … and the radical Americans and Europeans who seem to always have knack for siding with those who want to destroy Israel and slaughter jews, what is a valid solution?

So tell me; is it a 2-state solution or is it driving the jews in to the sea? Don’t know what else could be a viable resolution.

Flag as inappropriate
spokelooneh on October 11 at 8:12 p.m.
“I hope he commits to win the war in Afghanistan, as failure would not be good for the U.S.”

-Chip

Define “win the war in Afghanistan”, what are the elements in claiming such victory?

Flag as inappropriate
Chip Jones on October 12 at 10:17 a.m.
Spoke - To destroy Al Qaeda (in Pakistan as well) and prevent them from establishing safe havens elsewhere.
Defeat any Taliban factions that support Al Qaeda.

Richard - the Nobel award was clearly made for political reasons and to shape future diplomatic negotiations. They said so during the announcement. It does not “rankle” me in the least. You can not see beyond you own biases to even understand simple statements. Limburger said that the award was decided in February when the nominations were closed. I was just answering a question on where that meme came from. Rusho is not correct, he just made it up. He is free to make up what ever he wants, but people are naïve to believe it. He is an entertainer, and does it just to increase his ratings, and hence, revenue. His principal goal is to make lots of money, not provide informed commentary.

Flag as inappropriate
Arch_Druid on October 12 at 10:40 a.m.
“Richard,” point taken that the Nobel Peace Prize has gone out to people who definitely did not deserve them, including Arafat, late and not so great. However, to call everyone “the left” who would use the “peace prize” to excuse the conduct of Arafat and others of his ilk is making use of a too broad a brush to try to make a very fine point.

Question, just how many Israeli people were given the Nobel nomination given what Spoketucky posted concerning them? No? Given that Arafat went well beyond terrorist activities against the Israeli people granted land of their own in that 1948 or 1949 agreement and spread terrorist acts even against countries that had at least some sympathies toward the Palestinians and none for their Jewish neighbors; you sure that “the left” is an argument that works here? Says a lot about what you don't seem to relate to much when it comes to people and what drives them. For all of Arafat's terrorist activities, yet he still wins the Nobel Peace Prize? Maybe that was a political argument to get him to stop being a terrorist. Think about that one!

Flag as inappropriate
Gary Crooks on October 12 at 11:10 a.m.
<<Nobody considers Rush a reporter. >>

Except for Rush. “I AM balance!”

Or does he no longer say that?

Flag as inappropriate
Arch_Druid on October 12 at 11:25 a.m.
“Rush is right!” has been a bumpersticker ever since he got started in this racket, Gary C. But listen to the dude, and Rush sounds like a loony. No ref to Spokelooneh.

Flag as inappropriate
richard on October 12 at 4:17 p.m.
So why is it that Rush “rankles” the left so much? Is it that he offers his own opinion - even when it is “out there.” Or is it that he has lots and lots and lots of listeners; something no one on the left has ever been able to come close to?

Fess up! if Al Franken or Randi Rhoades or Mike McCroy (Mccoy?) had been as successful as Rush. would you also have been as concerned about the “stuff” they “reported” on or made up about GW Bush?

I will bet “dollars to donuts” you wouldn't.

Flag as inappropriate
richard on October 12 at 4:23 p.m.
And, I don't know if Rush still says that Gary; I didn't even know he ever said that.

I am nothing more than a very casual listener when i occasionally drive to and from the grocery store or some other mundane errand, and the radio is tuned to whatever AM station he is on.

i used to listen to Laura Ingraham, but she is no longer on the radio here it seems. She had a very soothing voice to listen to.

Flag as inappropriate
richard on October 12 at 4:45 p.m.
But what I am most curious about this past weekend is the words I read on the Opinion page on Sunday.

“We trust that one day defeat can be accepted and these true-blue Americans will remember that good manners can mean putting up with bad manners. Or, you could jst turn off the radio.” . . .

And why these words weren't offered in 2001 and again in 2005.

“I AM balance;” indeed.

Flag as inappropriate
Gary Crooks on October 13 at 10:29 a.m.
Yes, Richard. There are many ditto-heads. Already knew that. He rankles for the same reason you get rankled (daily).

Differences of opinion.

<<And why these words weren't offered in 2001 and again in 2005. >>

Differences of opinion. Winning a Nobel and starting a war are different things. And the 2000 election was a doozy. So was the resolution.

Flag as inappropriate
Arch_Druid on October 13 at 10:52 a.m.
I highly doubt, “Richard,” that Limbaugh rankles “the left” so much by his popularity but rather by his very crude behavior. And if “conservative” now means to engage in infantile name-calling, and reducing all arguments to symbols over substance; then this isn't “conservative.” And Limbaugh isn't “right wing.”

Flag as inappropriate
spoketucky on October 13 at 11:02 a.m.
Richard: What did the Zionists do to Palestinians after WWII? Did they invade the land of another people and call it their own? That is certainly what reality reveals, so how can you call what the Palestinians or their Arab allies did in response invasions or terrorism? It's the other way around, pal and no amount of windy obfuscation will erase that reality.

Flag as inappropriate
richard on October 13 at 7:46 p.m.
Gary, the bottom line, which you barely touched upon, but is the very essence of this discussion, is that Rush has vastly more influence than all the liberal commentators on radio or cable TV combined. That is why he is the number one target from the left, from media, and those who “talk the talk” on these pages.

They are rankled that he has inordinate power and influence. And I can understand that. What I don't understand is how honest liberals can't just acknowledge this; even though I do recognise the pyschology behind it.

But it is an argument with no resolution, at least until the left has their own version of “Rush,” and then people will be singing a different tune.

And yes, 2001 was a different sort. But 2004 clearly wasn't and the two following years produced “uncivility” not seen since 1969.

Today's uncivility is mostly “politics as usual” and doesn't compare at all with 2005 in the breadth, scope, tenor, or vindictiveness of the respective critics. And that is just the truth, plain and simple.

Flag as inappropriate
richard on October 13 at 8:05 p.m.
Tucky … the answer to your question is, No! They did not invade a sovereign nation … millions of Jews were already living there. It was an act of the United Nations; you know the organization which the idealists created to solve and resolve clashes such as who has the right to create a state in the land called Palestine.

It was that very UN which determined that the “just” resolution was to split the land and there be a two-nation solution. The whole of the Arab world, out of pure hatred and bigotry against Jews, then invaded Israel on day one, sending the combined organized militaries from Egypt, Jordon, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Syria and, Lebanon.

So who invaded whom? That argument is 60 years too late. The Israelis, through sheer determination, bravery and skilled fighting drove back the Arab world.

And after 60 years and the Egyptians putting down their arms and the Jordanians putting down their arms against Israel and the Palestinians - under the thumb of the foremost terrorist of his time - entrenched and still will not accept what the rest of the world, for the most part, have come to accept.

Israel is there to stay, and they have the right … just as every other sovereign nation has the right, to defend itself against all acts of barbarism. That is the reality.

In fact, if you were able to hear the voices of the rank and file Palestinians, they would say “Enough of the madness, let’s accept the two-nation resolution and get back to raising our children so they can have a peaceful life which the radicals could care less about, including most of the leftist radicals in this nation who tout the issue for purely ideological reasons and for anti-Semitism.

You really need to put away the self-righteous and idealistic notions and understand that peace will only come to the region when the two sides can lay down their arms and the Arabs agree to end their goal to destroy the lives of many millions of peace loving people - on both sides.

Flag as inappropriate
Gary Crooks on October 14 at 10:24 a.m.
<<They are rankled that he has inordinate power and influence. And I can understand that. What I don't understand is how honest liberals can't just acknowledge this; even though I do recognise the pyschology behind it. >>

You've lost me. I don't have a problem acknowledging his influence. I wasn't aware of a consensus on the left like you described. After all, when Michael Steele, GOP party chair, critcized Rush, he ended up taking it back. That is power. So it makes sense that he would be a target.

<<But it is an argument with no resolution, at least until the left has their own version of “Rush,” and then people will be singing a different tune. >>

Hope this never happens.

<<And yes, 2001 was a different sort. But 2004 clearly wasn't and the two following years produced “uncivility” not seen since 1969.
Today's uncivility is mostly “politics as usual” and doesn't compare at all with 2005 in the breadth, scope, tenor, or vindictiveness of the respective critics. And that is just the truth, plain and simple. >>

You can't remove events from the analysis. Just one example: What has Obama done that compares with the Iraq war and the mess that has resulted from that? What WMD?

Flag as inappropriate
richard on October 14 at 11:09 a.m.
Come on, what you are saying is that the “mess” created by Bush is worse than the “mess” being created by Obama, which discounts the view that was held by many that the Iraq war was the correct war.

You are supplanting objective analysis with personal and politcal viewpoint; which is fine since you are a commentator. But it doesn't wash as being “factual,” as you intimate.

Besides, the topic you wrote about wasn't the severity of the respective “messes,” it was the uncivility of the critics! You “excuse” the uncivility in 2005 by essentially saying … “Bush deserved it.”

You are demonstrating the same kind of thinking of David Schuster some months back, when he was questioned about his reportage, in which he said words to the effect that Sarah Palin was not “qualified” for national politics, and retorted something to the effect … “Well, everyone KNOWS she isn't qualified.”

A liberal reporter getting confused between “facts” - as viewed by liberals and Democrats - and opinion.

Thus the essence of liberal bias in media.

Flag as inappropriate
Gary Crooks on October 14 at 12:21 p.m.
You are conflating opinion and reporting again. What I write or what Cal Thomas writes has no bearing on bias

<<Come on, what you are saying is that the “mess” created by Bush is worse than the “mess” being created by Obama, which discounts the view that was held by many that the Iraq war was the correct war.>>

Yes. That's what I'm saying, and look how you've discounted that people want health-care reform. Many people who wanted war believed the WMD arguments of Bush. And as we have discovered, he left out some compelling information that showed that he was cherry-picking. Ask Colin Powell about that.

<<You are supplanting objective analysis with personal and politcal viewpoint; which is fine since you are a commentator. But it doesn't wash as being “factual,” as you intimate.>>

Of course, it's opinion. Should go without saying. How have you “objectively” quantified the relative “messes?”

It's very simple. In my opinion, there was much more to be angry about after years of Bush vs. months of Obama.

Flag as inappropriate
richard on October 14 at 7:05 p.m.
So why didn't you say that “being angry” is justification for acting uncivil? In essence, that is just what you offered as a reason why your commentary was not appropriate in 2005. you and many other were angry, so the uncivil behavior was justified.

You might want to re-think that logic.

Is that what “good parents” teach their children? “Little Jimmy, good citizenship means you act in a civil manner … except when you are REALLY angry, then it is okay to be boorish and uncivil to others.”

“And little Jamie, the reason why it is wrong for people to be “uncivil” towards Obama is because we support his policies… but it was entirely excusable when people were uncivil towards Bush. You see, it is okay to use a double standard when it involved Bush, because, as we all well know, he did things WE didn't like, so act out in any uncivil manner you care to, we in media willl have your back.”

Again, you might want to re-think that logic. Or, maybe not!

But thanks for the parenting tips. i will be speaking to a classroom next week and I will offer those citizenship tips to them and their teacher. I will let you know what they think.

Flag as inappropriate
Arch_Druid on October 14 at 9:08 p.m.
The mark of a true little red book touting GW supporter and the cult of personality that continues to surround him, right, “Richard?” I don't have any objections to Obama being criticized when there is legitimate reason to criticize. What I have to shake my head in amazement at, is that the “criticism” comes more from GOP eating sour grapes over their loss and their continued obduracy even when Dems like Baucus tried to “appease them” with a stripped down Senate version of the health care bill; than anything that can be legitimately argued are flaws in Obama's foreign and domestic policies.

Yeah, the GOP lost badly in 2008 and they are behaving like tantrum throwing 2 year olds.

Flag as inappropriate
Gary Crooks on October 15 at 11:48 a.m.
Lordy, Richard. It's just a matter of discretion. Get angry about a bad war decision or get mad about something like a Nobel Peace Prize.

It's not complicated.

Flag as inappropriate
richard on October 15 at 7:48 p.m.
I guess I realized you would “deflect” again on this.

You are correct, it isn't complicated, but you avoid addressing the issue as it was framed.

You wrote about BAD MANNERS; about INCIVILITY. I responded that you could have written the same commentary in 2005, but you chose not to,

I merely asked why? You then clouded the issue by trying to say - without really realizing it - by trying to infer that the BAD MANNERS in 2005 was “justified,” while it is not in 2009.

You are way too intelligent to fail to grasp the nuance of my point.

Tell the truth, are you exploring your future opportunities - what with the state of affairs with newspapers - as a media guy for a politician; are you looking to be the “Robert Gibbs” for some politician?

You are getting realy good at giving “non-answers” to questions you don't want to answer.

I will spell it out for you …If it is bad manners today in 2009, it was bad manners in 2005! Please tell me why not if you disagree.

Very simple.

Flag as inappropriate
richard on October 15 at 7:48 p.m.
I guess I realized you would “deflect” again on this.

You are correct, it isn't complicated, but you avoid addressing the issue as it was framed.

You wrote about BAD MANNERS; about INCIVILITY. I responded that you could have written the same commentary in 2005, but you chose not to,

I merely asked why? You then clouded the issue by trying to say - without really realizing it - by trying to infer that the BAD MANNERS in 2005 was “justified,” while it is not in 2009.

You are way too intelligent to fail to grasp the nuance of my point.

Tell the truth, are you exploring your future opportunities - what with the state of affairs with newspapers - as a media guy for a politician; are you looking to be the “Robert Gibbs” for some politician?

You are getting realy good at giving “non-answers” to questions you don't want to answer.

I will spell it out for you …If it is bad manners today in 2009, it was bad manners in 2005! Please tell me why not if you disagree.

Very simple.

Flag as inappropriate
richard on October 15 at 7:49 p.m.
oops …how did that happen?

Flag as inappropriate
Arch_Druid on October 15 at 11:00 p.m.
Simple, you hit post too many times.

Got a question, “Richard,” why was incivility so unacceptable in 2005 during the GW years? But as Clinton left the office of the presidency, he could literally be accused of “stealing” whether that was the case of not and incivility was very much accepted? Isn't the real argument here one of politics? Before you rant at Gary C. you first need to quit projecting.

Flag as inappropriate
richard on October 16 at 7:10 p.m.
No one is ranting at Gary. I merely pointed out that if things are “uncivil” today and that is important enough to comment about, what was different in 2005?

No ranting; just asking.

And my last post was only a comment about Gary's tendency not to answer questions that are revealing.

Flag as inappropriate
Arch_Druid on October 22 at 9:34 p.m.
As I recall, anyone who engaged in an “uncivil moment” during the GW years got called un-American and pro-terrorist. Really, “Richard.”

Flag as inappropriate