| Author |
Message |
    
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 14290
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 15, 2006 - 5:10 pm: | 
|
May 15, 2006
Op-Ed Columnist
America the Fearful
By BOB HERBERT
In the dark days of the Depression, Franklin Roosevelt counseled Americans to avoid fear. George W. Bush is his polar opposite. The public's fear is this president's most potent political asset. Perhaps his only asset.
Mr. Bush wants ordinary Americans to remain in a perpetual state of fear — so terrified, in fact, that they will not object to the steady erosion of their rights and liberties, and will not notice the many ways in which their fear is being manipulated to feed an unconscionable expansion of presidential power.
If voters can be kept frightened enough of terrorism, they might even overlook the monumental incompetence of one of the worst administrations the nation has ever known.
Four marines drowned Thursday when their 60-ton tank rolled off a bridge and sank in a canal about 50 miles west of Baghdad. Three American soldiers in Iraq were killed by roadside bombs the same day. But those tragic and wholly unnecessary deaths were not the big news. The big news was the latest leak of yet another presidential power grab: the administration's collection of the telephone records of tens of millions of American citizens.
The Bush crowd, which gets together each morning to participate in a highly secret ritual of formalized ineptitude, is trying to get its creepy hands on all the telephone records of everybody in the entire country. It supposedly wants these records, which contain crucial documentation of calls for Chinese takeout in Terre Haute, Ind., and birthday greetings to Grandma in Talladega, Ala., to help in the search for Osama bin Laden.
Hey, the president has made it clear that when Al Qaeda is calling, he wants to be listening, and you never know where that lead may turn up.
The problem (besides the fact that the president has been as effective hunting bin Laden as Dick Cheney was in hunting quail) is that in its fearmongering and power-grabbing the Bush administration has trampled all over the Constitution, the democratic process and the hallowed American tradition of government checks and balances.
Short of having them taken away from us, there is probably no way to fully appreciate the wonder and the glory of our rights and liberties here in the United States, including the right to privacy.
The Constitution and the elaborate system of checks and balances were meant to protect us against the possibility of a clownish gang of small men and women amassing excessive power and behaving like tyrants or kings. But the normal safeguards have not been working since the Bush crowd came to power, starting with the hijacked presidential election in 2000.
After the Sept. 11 attacks, all bets were off. John Kennedy once said, "The United States, as the world knows, will never start a war." But George W. Bush, employing an outrageous propaganda campaign ("Shock and awe," "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud"), started an utterly pointless war in Iraq that he still doesn't know how to win or how to end.
If you listen to the Bush version of reality, the president is all powerful. In that version, we are fighting a war against terrorism, which is a war that will never end. And as long as we are at war (forever), there is no limit to the war-fighting powers the president can claim as commander in chief.
So we've kidnapped people and sent them off to be tortured in the extraordinary rendition program; and we've incarcerated people at Guantánamo Bay and elsewhere without trial or even the right to know the charges against them; and we're allowing the C.I.A. to operate super-secret prisons where God-knows-what-all is going on; and we're listening in on the phone calls and reading the e-mail of innocent Americans without warrants; and on and on and on.
The Bushies will tell you that it is dangerous and even against the law to inquire into these nefarious activities. We just have to trust the king.
Well, I give you fair warning. This is a road map to totalitarianism. Hallmarks of totalitarian regimes have always included an excessive reliance on secrecy, the deliberate stoking of fear in the general population, a preference for military rather than diplomatic solutions in foreign policy, the promotion of blind patriotism, the denial of human rights, the curtailment of the rule of law, hostility to a free press and the systematic invasion of the privacy of ordinary people.
There are not enough pretty words in all the world to cover up the damage that George W. Bush has done to his country. If the United States could look at itself in a mirror, it would be both alarmed and ashamed at what it saw.
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company
|
dougw
Citizen
Username: Dougw
Post Number: 830
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Monday, May 15, 2006 - 5:11 pm: |
|
I am not suprised that Krugman is ashamed of the U.S.A. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 14291
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 15, 2006 - 5:17 pm: |
|
Who said anything about Krugman? 
Anyway, there's really nothing new in this commentary. But it's laid out succinctly.
|
llama
Citizen
Username: Llama
Post Number: 767
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, May 15, 2006 - 10:25 pm: |
|
The question is, what will it take to de-program these Bush-droids? Reality doesn't affect them. |
The Notorious S.L.K.
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 1407
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 8:49 am: |
|
llama-
A nice round or two of llama hunting should do the trick...
-SLK |
The Notorious S.L.K.
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 1408
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 8:50 am: |
|
Tom Reingold-
Do you read ANYTHING else besides the NYT editorial page?
-SLK |
Hoops
Citizen
Username: Hoops
Post Number: 1349
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 9:12 am: |
|
once again, as in 95% of all his posts SLK decides not to comment on any of the content of the post but instead to insult and belittle the posters.
Sad SLK. Do YOU have anything intelligent to add to the conversation? |
Chris Prenovost
Citizen
Username: Chris_prenovost
Post Number: 936
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 9:23 am: |
|
You know, Bob Herbert is usually so full of crap as to be unreadable. He will always adopt a far left point of view bordering on Stalinism. 90% of what he writes is factually wrong or debatable at best.
But in this case, he is right.
And the FDR anology is chilling. This President IS keeping us in fear. And appealing to our worst instincts. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 14298
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 9:25 am: |
|
Chris, you show a lot of open-mindedness, and I appreciate that.
I used to feel the same way about Bob Herbert. But he has a point of view, which I have to respect. He expresses it very well. He makes good points, whether you have his leanings or not. At the least, he provides good food for lots of thought.
|
Twokitties
Citizen
Username: Twokitties
Post Number: 439
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 10:09 am: |
|
There is nothing new here, but I think its important to recognize that this adminsitration purposely manipulated the fears of the American people for its own political gain. And their is nothing honorable about that. |
dave23
Citizen
Username: Dave23
Post Number: 1768
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 10:10 am: |
|
Fear is good for the economy and good for those who enjoy power. |
themp
Supporter
Username: Themp
Post Number: 2890
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 11:06 am: |
|
what rough beast slouches towards Bethlehem to be born? |
Spanish Inquisitor
Citizen
Username: Sinq
Post Number: 69
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 11:27 am: |
|
 |
llama
Citizen
Username: Llama
Post Number: 768
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 11:37 am: |
|
SLK
When, if ever, will you wake up and be able to think for yourself??? |
themp
Supporter
Username: Themp
Post Number: 2891
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 11:46 am: |
|
Rowdy Roddy Piper. |
thegoodsgt
Citizen
Username: Thegoodsgt
Post Number: 975
Registered: 2-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 12:01 pm: |
|
This thread has me ROTF!! |
The Notorious S.L.K.
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 1410
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 11:07 pm: |
|
Hoops-
My question to Reingold is a legitimate one, how am I being insulting?
Here is my "intelligent input" Hoops. Should I type slow so you can keep up? Ready...?
What exactly is Herbert latest Anti-Bush rant offering so mindblowing and refreshing that hasn't been repeated umpteen times before? Dubya rules with fear, yada yada yada....Hebert, Dowd and Rich get paid for saying "Bush sucks" a different way each week.
llama-
There is strong evidence to presume that Reingold's politics are developed via the NYT OPeds (since he posts one at least once a week) you ask me when I am going to start thinking for myself?
Go figure...there is more than one opinion out there folks, even ones you may not agree with. I dare you to challenge yourselves.
-SLK |
Case
Citizen
Username: Case
Post Number: 1586
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 11:29 pm: |
|
Folks, if we're going to protect our great nation of Oceania we're going to have to follow our President. Plain and simple.
|
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 14305
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 17, 2006 - 7:40 am: |
|
For argument's sake, yes, I read stuff other than the Times Op-Ed page. Now, where do we go from here?
|
llama
Citizen
Username: Llama
Post Number: 769
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 17, 2006 - 8:28 am: |
|
SLK;
Seems to me that anybody with a few living brain cells is capable of formulating the opinion that Bush has lied and mis-lead our country into the mess that it's in right now just from the direct results of his actions (or in-actions).
The only challenge for me would be to try to justify or reason them. For example:What the hell did Iraq have to do with 9/11???? Would we be there or care about Iraqi democracy if there wasn't any oil there? What did "mission accomplished" mean? What is "the war on terror" and can it ever be won or end with the way we are proceeding? Was there ever or is there a plan? Please explain these for starters and we can continue from there. |
Hoops
Citizen
Username: Hoops
Post Number: 1362
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 17, 2006 - 8:55 am: |
|
SLK the fact remains that Herberts point of view is reasonable and very likely closer to the truth then what you are willing to admit. I see no rebuttal of his points or his opinions that you have justified. He eloquently puts his view on display for you to ridicule but he has a valid point. Totalitarianism is on the march in our country. Little by little we are giving up our privacy, our freedom, our independence to the oversight of the government.
and as I said one insult after the other from you. Can you even make one post without being insulting? |
The Notorious S.L.K.
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 1411
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 17, 2006 - 10:17 am: |
|
Hoops,
I agree with you on Herbert, he poses an, ahem, "eloquently put reasonable point of view" but my point is I have heard this argument since 9/12/01. How many times do we need to rehash this opinion (not fact)? He is not offering anything new to the discussion just dwelling on the old talking points and courting his base readers. Dowd, Rich are also guilty of this. Do they all think if you keep repeating the same old thing time and time again that it makes it true?
Don't get me wrong, some on the right also do the same. I tried out the Hannity talk show podcast but cancelled it quickly. He too kept repeating the smae old same old stuff for three hours a day, five days a week.
I don' t ridicule Hebert for his opinions. I ridicule his lack of ability to write about anything else that doesn't involve constant Bush bashing.
In my humble opinion, the only "totalitarian march" going on in this country is the one in your head.
Sometimes you may be confusing my "insulting" behavior with my naturally sarcastic existence. But yes, sometimes I do become insulting because I become insulted with some posters and their comments. I am not doing anything different then I would in real life.
As soon as MOL posters raise the level of discussion I will remain on the same level as them. Right now, all the boards are free pyschothearpy for the arrogant, know it all Bush haters.
-SLK |
Chris Prenovost
Citizen
Username: Chris_prenovost
Post Number: 945
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 17, 2006 - 10:29 am: |
|
SLK, I think you may be missing the point.
We have a President who is unarguably incompetent, dishonest, and appeals to people's worst instincts. His actions are as far from those of a true Republican as possible.
This used to be opinion, it has now become fact.
To point this out is not 'repeating the same old thing time and time again'.
Using your logic, Saddam could excuse his genocide by paraphrasing you: "Mass murder, genocide, exterminations on a regular basis, torture as state policy, blah, blah, blah, yada, yada, yada, what else is new? It's just the same old charges over and over again. . . nothing new. You prosecutors keep repeating the same old thing" |
Nohero
Supporter
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 5396
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 17, 2006 - 10:32 am: |
|
Bob Herbert may have been making the same argument for a while now, but that leads to the question -
Why does the Administration keep giving him new evidence to point to?
Now, if you'll excuse me, since I've posted from this location, they can find me. I will now have to move to a different computer before, well, you know ... |
tjohn
Supporter
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 4331
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 17, 2006 - 10:36 am: |
|
I was called a Bush-hater from the moment I start to disagree with his policies. And that was at a time when I definitely was NOT a Bush-hater. My most worthwhile contributions to MOL were in opposition to the invasion of Iraq before we actually crossed the Rubicon. Many people disagreed with me. The more feeble-minded of these could only understand my opposition as Bush-hate. |
Hoops
Citizen
Username: Hoops
Post Number: 1364
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 17, 2006 - 10:43 am: |
|
Herbert is an oped columnist. Maybe the issue you really have is with the investigative reporting that is NOT being done by newspapers, radio and TV. The stories are out there and they are being ignored by the press, by the broadcast media and by our congress.
Oversight begins with investigations and our congress refuses to investigate. The first thing a totalitarian state want to do is keep its working secret. Seems to me this government is the most secret we have ever seen. Seems to me that congress refuses to investigate anything, unless they allow the subject of the investigation to run the investigation. Thats a good way to get to the truth, right?
If we can not get the answers because the questions are not being asked at the very least we can write over and over again what we see as the results of the decisions and policies of the goverment. If you are bored with it then I feel sorry for you. You should be angry. Angry that the America that you are promised is not the America that you are getting. |
llama
Citizen
Username: Llama
Post Number: 770
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 17, 2006 - 11:32 am: |
|
SLK
The only argument I seem to hear from Bush supporters regarding their opposition is that they are "Bush Haters."
That void in getting a concrete response from them speaks volumes. IF they hear the same points over and over, I guess it means the questions haven't been answered satisfactorily, and people are unified on thier views. SO JUST ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS! |
notehead
Supporter
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 3287
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 17, 2006 - 4:45 pm: |
|
Also, as mentioned previously, the columns by the main writers on the NYT's Op/Ed page are no longer available for free. Reingold is doing many of us a favor by posting them. (I actually forked over the cash, because I particularly like Tom Friedman's column and feel it's worth it.)
Herbert and others constantly harp on the administration's horrific incompetence because they feel that it is very, very important. And they're right. Perhaps if the administration wasn't so consistent in it's ineptitude, the critics wouldn't be so consistent with their criticism. Perhaps if there weren't such a god-awful number of things to be severely concerned about, there wouldn't be so much complaining. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 14332
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 17, 2006 - 4:56 pm: |
|
And even if the administration weren't so incompetent, the editorials should continue to criticize it. Isn't that their job? It's part of trying to focus us on what's important as a society.
They were plenty critical of Clinton when he was in power, too.
|
The Notorious S.L.K.
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 1419
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 17, 2006 - 5:23 pm: |
|
Tom & Company,
I have no problem with "criticizing editorial" but please allow me to point out that Hebert, yet again, uses every cliche leftist anti-Bush rant/sterotype in his article.
I am sorry but if your questions are not being answered the way you wish them to be. Maybe you should think about posing them in a different matter. Doing so as Herbert does above (snide, arrogant, factually incorrect) obviously isn't working.
But could it be just that? That you don't like the answers to your questions?
We do remember what the definition of insanity is, right?
-SLK
Thank you Tom for posting these articles though since they do cost you money. I buy/borrow the NYT on a daily basis and read it along with the WSJ OP Eds and then formulate my own opinion. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 14333
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 17, 2006 - 5:28 pm: |
|
Easy there. I haven't insulted you, and I ask you offer me the same courtesy.
So we both read the Times. Good. And you form your own opinions. Is that an implication I don't form my own? How do you figure? Because I post them? If you posted one, would that mean you don't think for yourself? None of this makes sense.
I'm not saying I dislike the answers to my questions. How can I? I haven't received any.
|
The Notorious S.L.K.
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 1422
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 17, 2006 - 5:43 pm: |
|
Tom-
Don't know why you are insulted but I don't see how you can offer an objective opinion by looking at your reading list. The NYT, the NYer....see a pattern?
I have read the Nation before, have you ever read NR?
-SLK |
llama
Citizen
Username: Llama
Post Number: 771
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 17, 2006 - 8:55 pm: |
|
SLK;
Still you offer no attempt to address any of these recurring questions so we can move on at least knowing you have some valid argument. I ask you to give some inkling of insite into these questions without any of the "arrogance" etc. that you speak of.
What did Iraq have to do with 9/11????
Would we be there or care about Iraqi democracy if there wasn't any oil there?
Speaking of arrogance, what did "mission accomplished" mean?
What is "the war on terror" and can it ever be won or end with the way we are proceeding?
|
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 14350
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 18, 2006 - 4:39 pm: |
|
If someone told you that you don't think for yourself, wouldn't that be at least a tad offputting?
Subjectivity is all there is. You are entitled to feel Bush is a good president, just as I am entitled to feel he is not. You may think vanilla ice cream is best, but I still prefer chocolate. Neither of us is wrong. In matters of opinion, there is no such thing as objectivity. So yes, I don't offer an objective opinion. It's true. Neither does anyone else. And by definition, it's impossible for anyone to do.
I haven't read the Nation. I think I've read the National Review in the past. I'll take those as recommendations, and I'll take a look.
Note that the NY Times has conservative op-ed columnists, too. And Dowd is not a leftist. She is a tough critic of everyone elected.
|
The Notorious S.L.K.
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 1426
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, May 18, 2006 - 9:29 pm: |
|
Tom-
Never said you didn't think for yourself, just that your reading list is biased. We all have a tendency of seeking out those who hold similar beliefs as us for affirmation (myself as well).
Our biggest challenge in life is to constantly challenge our belief systems. We all need socratic gadflies in our lives, whether we like it or not.
And saying "there is no such thing as objectivity" is a subjective viewpoint. While I am not saying objectivity does exist I don't think you can rightfully deny its existence. Even so, what is wrong with striving for it?
I am not asking you to offer an objective viewpoint. I am asking you to research mutiple resources before developing an opinion. I am sure you do it in many other area in your life, why not politics/world issues as well?
That in itself is objectivity at it finest.
Peace.
-SLK
Brookes is considered the "token conservative" for NYT and Tierney is more libertarian....may I suggest the WSJ OP Eds? I always enjoyed their common sense approach to things.They have very few regular columnist...most are guest writers.... |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 3160
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Friday, May 19, 2006 - 8:56 am: |
|
I believe what Tom meant is that there is no such thing as an objective opinion. "The sky is blue" can be an objective fact, given an agreed upon definition of "sky" and "blue". But "the sky is a pretty shade of blue" is subjective because there is no universal agreement what constitutes "pretty".
But then, I don't speak for Tom so I may have it wrong. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 14354
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 19, 2006 - 10:06 am: |
|
That's exactly what I'm saying. "Objective opinion" is an oxymoron.
I do read a bunch of sources. My list of citations, however, is clearly biased, and I see nothing wrong with that. Why should I represent stuff I disagree with. I guess you're assuming that the stuff I cite is the only stuff I read.
But I'll take your reading suggestions, too.
|
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 2106
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 19, 2006 - 10:51 am: |
|
regardless, accusing someone of a lack of objectivity and telling him to consult other sources is not a proper refutation of his point. it is possible for someone to be lacking in objectivity, consulting only sources that confirm his predispostions, and still be right about the issue in question. of course logically rebutting an argument is a lot more work than dismissing it as the work of someone with an ax to grind. |
Madden 11
Citizen
Username: Madden_11
Post Number: 916
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 19, 2006 - 11:12 am: |
|
Doing so as Herbert does above (snide, arrogant, factually incorrect) obviously isn't working.
Let's start here. SLK, "snide" and "arrogant" are matters of opinion, and you are certainly welcome to yours. But "factually incorrect" is not an opinion. Can you do us the service of listing a few of Herbert's points that are factually incorrect? |
llama
Citizen
Username: Llama
Post Number: 775
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, May 19, 2006 - 11:16 am: |
|
If he doesn't respond it means he can't, as with my posts, and your points are well taken. He can only criticize. |
themp
Supporter
Username: Themp
Post Number: 2920
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Friday, May 19, 2006 - 11:28 am: |
|
 |
The Notorious S.L.K.
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 1442
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Friday, May 19, 2006 - 8:54 pm: |
|
Madden11:
Here is one:
"But the normal safeguards have not been working since the Bush crowd came to power, starting with the hijacked presidential election in 2000."
And?
-SLK
Herbert has a keen way of declaring his opinions as fact...cute tactic.
|
Madden 11
Citizen
Username: Madden_11
Post Number: 917
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 19, 2006 - 10:04 pm: |
|
SLK--
I don't think that's a "tactic." Is there another way to state an opinion? Who do you know that doesn't think their own opinion is fact? Obviously, if a person holds an opinion, it's because he or she thinks it's true. Do you propose that Herbert start every sentence with "This is just my opinion, but..."? Or is it enough of a clue for most folks that the piece is running on the OP-ED page?
The term "hijacked" is admittedly inflamatory, but would you honestly say that there can be no question about the manner in which the 2000 election was decided? Here we had (activist?) judges stopping the counting of legally cast votes...that's an example of checks and balances out of whack.
I admit, it's debatable...and I'm sure different people see it differently. But that's the point. Herbert's OPINION is that the election was hijacked, and his opinion is every bit as valid as yours or mine. Your example is not an example of an incorrect fact. An incorrect fact would be something like:
"But the normal safeguards have not been working since the Reagan crowd came to power, starting with the hijacked presidential election in 2000."
See the difference? |
The Notorious S.L.K.
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 1447
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, May 21, 2006 - 8:11 pm: |
|
Madden11,
You are correct, I may have gone a little overboard with using "factually incorrect" to describe Herbert's piece. But like many, OpEd writers or not, do have a bad, ummmm, habit(?) of acting as if their opinions are cold hard facts.
BUt I am a firm believer that opinions can be wrong, especially if it a result of misinformed information.
But I do stand by my "snide/arrogant" beliefs. Besides, he is also a broken record....
And no, I don't believe activist judges unwarrantly gotten involved in the 2000 election mess. If the FLA SC didn't get involved (was warned not to by the USSC but did anyways), the USSC wouldn't have gotten involved....
-SLK |
Madden 11
Citizen
Username: Madden_11
Post Number: 919
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 22, 2006 - 10:38 am: |
|
But like many, OpEd writers or not, do have a bad, ummmm, habit(?) of acting as if their opinions are cold hard facts.
Opinion-holder, heal thyself.
And no, I don't believe activist judges unwarrantly gotten involved in the 2000 election mess. If the FLA SC didn't get involved (was warned not to by the USSC but did anyways), the USSC wouldn't have gotten involved....
Well, that's one way of looking at it. But why are you acting like it's a cold hard fact? Seems like a bad, ummmm, habit(?) to me. |
The Notorious S.L.K.
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 1460
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Monday, May 22, 2006 - 11:13 am: |
|
Madden 11,
Must you always be so snide with your responses? Are you incapable of having normal discussion? No wonder you don't see Herbert's snideness in his columns...
Let me try this again.
In my humble opinion, many, OpEd writers or not, do have a bad, ummmm, habit(?) of acting as if their opinions are cold hard facts.
Also:
And no, in my humble opinion, I don't believe activist judges unwarrantly gotten involved in the 2000 election mess. If the FLA SC didn't get involved (was warned not to by the USSC but did anyways), the USSC wouldn't have gotten involved....
Less wittness and more content please? In my humble opinion of course...
Thanks,
-SLK
|
notehead
Supporter
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 3306
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, May 22, 2006 - 11:23 am: |
|
SLK, some of Herbert's columns are about individuals who have had a bad break from the justice system. Some are about equal rights issues. Others are about the physical and mental injuries endured by our soldiers. And others are about Herbert's feelings about the Bush administration's competence. Other topics also come and go in Herbert's column, as well. Yet you seem to think that all Herbert does is complain about Bush, and that this is a reason for discounting or disregarding his column. You're wrong.
(I hope the baby is doing well, by the way.  ) |
Madden 11
Citizen
Username: Madden_11
Post Number: 923
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 22, 2006 - 2:01 pm: |
|
Must you always be so snide with your responses?
No, not always...you just seem to bring it out in me. And the sillier your posts get, the snarkier mine get.
No wonder you don't see Herbert's snideness in his columns...
I never said that...all I said was that snideness is in the eye of the beholder. You come across as way more snide to me than Herbert does, but that's because I generally agree with him and disagree with you. I have an understanding of the biases of my perception, while you love to pretend you're the ultimate in fairness and balance. You object to my tone without addressing the substance, just as you do with Bob Herbert. Yet you often applaud the snide posts on this board by those who share your political views.
In my humble opinion, many, OpEd writers or not, do have a bad, ummmm, habit(?) of acting as if their opinions are cold hard facts.
See? Now isn't that stupid? Shouldn't you just be able to express an opinion without having to qualify it like that? And by the same token, shouldn't Bob Herbert? |
The Notorious S.L.K.
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 1469
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Monday, May 22, 2006 - 5:50 pm: |
|
notehead-
You are most likely right. It just seems like I always pick up the issue of NYT where is on one of his anti-Bush rants.
The baby is doing well by the way, a bit gaseous at night, but ok. Thanks for asking...
-SLK |
Alleygater
Citizen
Username: Alleygater
Post Number: 2093
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - 11:49 am: |
|
Does that mean the baby is collic-ey or that the bedroom is very stinky? |
dave23
Citizen
Username: Dave23
Post Number: 1797
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - 11:58 am: |
|
I can't think of a single columnist--particularly one who has to write more than one piece a week--who isn't repetetive. Herbert's okay because he actually backs up his advocacy with investigation. Tierney and Brooks are dreadfully boring (they should have hired Chris Caldwell for one of the Friendly Conservative slots) and Dowd is, well... |
The Notorious S.L.K.
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 1473
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - 1:03 pm: |
|
Alley-
the former...and my wife sis suffering ddearly for it...
-SLK |
Alleygater
Citizen
Username: Alleygater
Post Number: 2097
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - 1:59 pm: |
|
Well I feel worse for the baby than the sister-in-law. |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page