I was thinking I'd been pretty tough resisting getting sucked into talking about Cindy Sheehan, but then I Googled my blog for her name and got this. Still, in proportion to the press coverage that she's gotten, I'm going to call my bloggage light.
My record is totally clear, however, when it comes to ignoring Pat Robertson.
August 26, 2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
14 comments:
Sheehan is a story because there are "groups" (most despicable) behind her and ready to support her protest. Further, the liberal media agrees with Sheehan so they are willing to give her press.
In contrast, you don't see conservatives coming out to support Robertson. Why then is it a story...because the liberal media uses it as a straw man. They despise Robertson so they love this story!
I still hope Chavez fall down dead tomorrow before he has the chance to rape and pillage Latin America. Further it looks likely that Chavez will appoint himself lifetime president soon. Maybe if that happens, at that point we should think about taking action. But, even still, assassination by the US Government should be reserved for first rate tyrants such as Saddam.
Sheehan is a story because there are "groups" (most despicable) behind her and ready to support her protest. Further, the liberal media agrees with Sheehan so they are willing to give her press.
In contrast, you don't see conservatives coming out to support Robertson.
"Despicable"? Enough with the demonization.
The "liberal media" is a ridiculous myth.
Sheehan and Robertson occupy totally different positions. Also, when did Sheehan advocate assassination again? Your comparison is absurd.
Well, thersites, you just saved me some typing to my favorite friend, Sloan. Exactly what I was going to say.
Oops, you just went and said it. Now your blog will show up on Google searches for "Pat Robertson." Ooops -- sorry.
I know we're not really talking about this, but . . . what bothers me almost as much as the fact that Pat Robertson called for the assassination of another country's leader is the sort of half-assed economic analysis he used to justify it. Sure, nobody really listens to him, but those who do listen to him have as much of a right to vote as I do, or as Professor Althouse or George or Brando do, and that saddens me.
Although I'm a conservative Christian, neither Pat Robertson nor Jerry Falwell, nor (fill in the blank) speaks for me. I will do that myself, thank you.
What interests me in this affair is that the some of the same people who feel Pat Robertson should keep his mouth shut are the same people who felt Ward Churchill can propagate his insane meanderings under "freedom of speech".
I say let them all speak, and ignore those who are blowhards (which, of course, might include me).
Re Charles: So much for our melting pot land of the free nation. It fills me with pride when I hear and read things like your comment that just make me love the right so. Good thing the native Americans were more hospitable to OUR ancestors so that we Europeans could claim this land as our own and try our damndest to keep the Mexicans (people who already occupied the continent) out!! ...Despite the fact that our consti.. oh, nevermind. This will mean nothing to you anyways..
What interests me in this affair is that the some of the same people who feel Pat Robertson should keep his mouth shut are the same people who felt Ward Churchill can propagate his insane meanderings under "freedom of speech".
Uh, they both can say whatever the hell they want. And you're free to tell them they're idiots.
Nobody cares about Ward Churchill, though, or ever did, except wingnuts who like demon-hunting. Lots of people DO care about Pat Robertson, though. Unless you can point me to WC's nationally televised program.
Thanks for the silly false equivalence, though. Here, have a mint.
Perhaps you might want to shed your cultural bias about poverty
M ore of this hippie cultural relativism...
"...In Venezuela, the equation is even worse and they don't even seem to have the benefit of the anemic middle class that mexico does...."
Brando, I was commenting on the potential and likely despotism of Chavez, not on the economic reality of the region. Sorry if you misunderstood my point.
"...Good thing the native Americans were more hospitable to OUR ancestors so that we Europeans could claim this land as our own and try our damndest to keep the Mexicans (people who already occupied the continent) out!!..."
Ploopusgirl, this stuff is sucha great example of classic politically correct gobbly rhetoric that I will have to chuckle everytime you try to claim that generalizations of liberals do not apply to you.
"....Nobody cares about Ward Churchill, though, or ever did, except wingnuts who like demon-hunting. Lots of people DO care about Pat Robertson, though. Unless you can point me to WC's nationally televised program....."
Thersites, you just furthered Dean's point. If nobody cares about Ward Churcill why did he get as much or more press than Robertson?
If nobody cares about Ward Churcill why did he get as much or more press than Robertson?
Because, as I said, wingnuts threw a tantrum about him.
I didn't even know that Pat Robertson still had a television show until these news stories.
I second Michael's post.
As for another post:
The "liberal media" is a ridiculous myth.
No. The fact that you can't see the liberal bias is ridiculous.
Post a Comment