But It’s OK When Our Guy Says It, Part II
September 25th, 2006 | by Ken Grandlund |A few days ago, I wrote a post in which I equated the comments of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez (calling US President George Bush the ‘devil’) to comments made by President Bush when labeling other nations or leaders part of an ‘axis of evil.’ My point, which was entirely missed by the more conservative readers and commenters at this blog, was that Chavez’s comments, while ludicrous, were no more so than those of our president, and that any protestations to the contrary amounted to little more than an obvious double standard.
Despite being accused of “running down my homeland” and admonished for posting “useless moral equivalencies,” what was most apparent to me was the lengths to which those on the right would go to defend anything negative against George W. Bush while completely ignoring the hypocrisy of their defenses.
So it is no surprise to me to hear silence from that same group of Compassionate Conservatives and God-Fearing Americans when it got into the papers that the Reverend Jerry Falwell told a group of religious leaders that he hoped for Hillary Clinton to run for president because she would energize his (or rather the neo-con, fundamentalist, and/or fear-wracked Republican) base more than Lucifer himself could.
Falwell, while admitting to the remarks, brushed them off as “tongue-in-cheek” while an aide of his claimed he had “no intentions of demonizing her.” Really? Hmmm…I don’t know how else you could characterize such a statement, but then again, I am just someone who engages in “useless moral equivalencies.”
Falwell isn’t taken seriously by a lot of people. But as founder of The Moral Majority, and as a nationally televised televangelist, there are many millions who do take heed of his every word. And his website, Jerry Falwell Ministries claims to be sponsored by The Liberty Alliance, a registered lobbying organization that has the ear of many politicians in our nation’s Capitol. Clearly, among the evangelical crowd, when Jerry Falwell talks, people listen. And a lot of those people are likely the same ones who just days ago were up in arms over Hugo Chavez calling George W. Bush the devil.
Silence, they say, is golden. But in this case, the silence regarding Falwell’s remarks speaks volumes about the hypocrisy and intellectual vapidness that has grown so prevalent among this country’s majority party and it’s “You’re either with us or you’re a traitor” supporters.
Falwell’s remarks are no less repulsive and ridiculous than those of Chavez. Funny thing though is how easily they will be dismissed by the Bush sycophants among us.
[tag]Jerry Falwell, Hugo Chavez, Hillary Clinton, hypocrisy, double+standard[/tag]
40 Responses to “But It’s OK When Our Guy Says It, Part II”
By Potfry on Sep 25, 2006 | Reply
By comparing the words of a head of state, proclaimed at a meeting of the United Nations, to the words of a blithering evangelist at a church, you reveal yourself as a sycophant to the left.
Also, Falwell quickly called his words “a joke.” Did your pal Mr. Chavez do the same?
Tell me, where did you take your course in moral equivalization?
By Jersey McJones on Sep 25, 2006 | Reply
Here we go with the idiotic “moral equivalency” again. It’s a typical sleazy con switch. Ken, of course, who we all know is not sycophant of anything, was asking if anyone on the Right sees the hypocrisy here of Chavez calling Bush “the devil” juxtaposed with Falwell (who is at least just as well known as Chavez) calling Hillary “lucifoer.” So, the sleazy con , who can not argue the point, instead switches it: it becomes a matter of “moral equivalence.” Of course, the irony here is that “moral equivalency” is an utterly subjective term. Ethics and Relativity are rational, scientific ways of examining and comparing behavior, while “moral equivialency” is based on faith and belief systems that have little or no basis in fact. So, the sleazy con tries to bring Ken down to their level - a more comforatable place where Morality is Truth and Ethics and Relativism are fancy.
The sleaziness of the Right never ceases to disappoint me.
JMJ
By SteveIL on Sep 25, 2006 | Reply
The sleaziness of the right? Potfry is absolutely correct: Jerry Falwell is the leader of a church, not a member of the government; Hugo Chavez is the head of state of a foreign government.
Is what Falwell said stupid? Yes, but Falwell has said a lot of stupid things; I refer to his remarks that the “sins” of America caused 9/11. But, it is what it is; the meanderings of a private citizen with no political power (he has influence, but that is not the same as power), just as the blatherings of Pat Robertson when he said Chavez should be hit.
Chavez, as has been noted, is the head of state of a nation, the leader of their government. He has real political power. He sets national policy in Venezuela, something neither Falwell nor Robertson can do here.
Again, this is another attempt by Bush-haters at moral equivalence. Am I a Bush sycophant? You say I am, so what’s the point of arguing otherwise. But, since the post contains a complete lack of understanding of moral equivalence, I can see why there is an attempt to dismiss it before it as a valid argument before it can be started.
Ain’t gonna work. I have refuted Falwell and his idiocies, and, at the same time, refute your arguments regarding moral equivalence.
By Potfry on Sep 25, 2006 | Reply
You miss the point, Jersey. I’ll admit Falwell’s sleazy, and his comments are out of bounds. But he’s a speck of dirt compared to a Head of State. How can you even compare the two?
When Democrats learn to stop saying, “Yeah? But he’s just as bad as X”, they might win some elections.
By anaveragepatriot on Sep 25, 2006 | Reply
Ken
Of course, you are right. Anyone capable of putting their self interest aside and looking at the two, will come to the obvious conclusion that there is no difference and it is just another standard Bush case of the pot calling the kettle black. I too have done a few posts on this subject as you may know, including today. Some people tend not to see the point and ridiculously see you as backing Chavez. But nothing is further from the truth!
As we watch daily the lower classes finding life more difficult because of the changes and constraints Bush has put on them and their lifestyle.Now he wants to screw with social security again and we can’t allow him to go it. Anyone but him!
As we watch daily the results of Bush’s purposeful attack on Iraq not to help free Iraqi’s but to use the excuse of fighting terrorism in order to implement his new middle east order.
As we watch Afghanistan as well as Iraq and the entire middle east, knowing Bush’s mess is just starting to bear its ugly fruit, and it will worsen soon.
As we watch the daily results of his politics of underhanded bullying and division gain further animosity and enemies on a daily basis. I have to say, I think Chavez is over the top but he is right! “He said Bush should renounce the presidency if he has any dignity. The president of the United States has failed completely.
http://www.onelocalnews.com/duntonsprings/ViewArticle.aspx?id=9101&source=2
By Emmet on Sep 25, 2006 | Reply
BIO! Taking the weekends off now?
By Potfry on Sep 25, 2006 | Reply
Ken. Address this point:
Does it make sense to compare the rhetoric of a senile preacher in a church to a Head of State at the United Nations General Assembly? Don’t equivocate. Just answer. Don’t talk about poor people. Just answer. Don’t get all soft and preachy. Just answer.
By Jersey McJones on Sep 25, 2006 | Reply
SteveIL and Potfry,
Falwell is just as well-known and just as important a political figure as Chavez. So please stop hiding from your moral icon. We all know you agree with him on most everything. Yes, Chavez says some pretty over-the-top schtick. It looks like it’s gonna cost Venezuela a seat on the UN Security Council. Not good. We could have used them now. Instead we may well get little Guatamala. A weak voice indeed. But Bush and Company utilize over=the-top rhetoric all the time, fomr the stupid “Axis of Evil,” to the insipid “Bring it on,” to the idiotic Imminent threat of Iraq,” to the retarded “War on Terror.” So when the Right wails and whines and moans and froths at the rhetoric of Ahmedinijad and Chavez, Castro and Mugabe, remember - you guys are just as bad with it.
JMJ
By ken grandlund on Sep 25, 2006 | Reply
To say that Falwell has little influence in government is to deny the access and affiliation which the religious right (Moral Majority, et.al.) currently enjoys among the Republican party machine.
Venezuela has a population of around 26 million people. Falwell has a following at least as numerous and most likely even greater than that. So yes, it terms of ‘reach’ there is just as much gravity placed on his words as on the leaders of third world countries. And yes, it makes sense to call the kettle black every time you come across it.
Even more, in American politics, what Falwell say changes votes. What Chavez says changes nothing.
And how about this bit of ‘moral equivalence?’ Terrorists who torture are evil. American government agents who torture are just saving lives. Ergo- their torture is bad, ours is not really torture because our aims are more pure. Be that as it may, in terms of morality, torture is torture is torture. You want to be taken seriously when you try to make ‘moral equivalencies’ yet you engage in them all the time.
By H. Evers on Sep 25, 2006 | Reply
Dear Mr. Mc Jones,
Well you and Mr. Grandlund continue to dig that hole even deeper. Ha well where to start?
What is the concept of moral equalavance (aka moral relativism)? Some conservative developed “bate and switch” as Mr. Mc Jones says? Or is it rather a leftist totalitarian concept that no universal standard exists by which to assess an ethical proposition’s truth. In other words a moral equivalent is to say that there is no difference between a fist fight between grade school kids and Global Nuclear War. They are both fights, they are both wrong, there for they are both equally bad. Now, Mr. Mc Jones and Mr. Grandlund are firm believers in Morally Equivalent behavior. In this case they argue that Mr. Chavez and Mr. Falwell remarks should be given equal weight. They accuse those who do not see it their way as being hypocrites and deviously trying to “hide” the truth. Well let us see:
Mr. Chavez is the internationally acknowledged President of Venezuela. He has all the toys that come with being the head of state, Army, Political power, economic influence and social influence. Mr. Falwell is (in this country) a well known religious figure. He has all of the trappings that go with that position, a church and a school with some social influence. Mr. Chavez gets invited to speak to the UN and influence global oil policy. Mr. Falwell gets to speak in church and influence those who choose to listen to his radio and TV programs. Hopefully everyone is beginning to see the difference between Mr. Chavez and Mr. Falwell. Just to be clear Mr. Chavez has actual power. He can make things happen both in Venezuela and in the world. Mr. Falwell has referent or indirect power. He can try to influence things in the United States and has little ability to actually do anything especially in the world in general.
Remarks made by these men are not and should not be given the same weight in the world. And indeed in this is case that is exactly what is happening. Mr. Chavez is generally listened to. Mr. Falwell (outside of a rather small following) is considered a joke which this recent episode of “foot in mouth” has done nothing to improve. It is not devious to point out the obvious. It is not hypocritical to offer an alternative analysis.
All the best
By Dr. Forbush on Sep 25, 2006 | Reply
SteveL wrote: “Jerry Falwell is the leader of a church, not a member of the government” And he is also a major level of the political machine. You are saying that because he isn’t personally elected, but he turns out the voters for his buddies he shouldn’t be held accountable. That sounds like a double standard to me. Many Christians vote the way he says to vote, hence these supporters of Falwell are also supporters of the extreme right in this country. It’s nice that they are able to build a convient screen of deniability, but the point still remains: “Birds of a feather flock together.” Reagan called the Soviet Union an Evil Empire, and George W Bush got votes for his over the top Axis of Evil speech.
And on it goes….
By Dr. Forbush on Sep 25, 2006 | Reply
SteveL wrote: “Jerry Falwell is the leader of a church, not a member of the government” And he is also a major lever of the political machine. You are saying that because he isn’t personally elected, but he turns out the voters for his buddies he shouldn’t be held accountable. That sounds like a double standard to me. Many Christians vote the way he says to vote, hence these supporters of Falwell are also supporters of the extreme right in this country. It’s nice that they are able to build a convient screen of deniability, but the point still remains: “Birds of a feather flock together.” Reagan called the Soviet Union an Evil Empire, and George W Bush got votes for his over the top Axis of Evil speech.
And on it goes….
By Jersey McJones on Sep 25, 2006 | Reply
Ah, Evers, my good man. Sit and have a snifter.
“What is the concept of moral equalavance (aka moral relativism)? Some conservative developed “bate and switch” as Mr. Mc Jones says?”
Yes. Moral Equivocation is not a part of the epistemology of the Left. Cultural Relativism is. But that’s something different entirely. Moral Equivocation is a rhetorical invention of the Right, just as is Morality itself. Its’ function is to protect the rabbling riling rightwing religious rude rhetoric from critique.
“Or is it rather a leftist totalitarian concept that no universal standard exists by which to assess an ethical proposition’s truth.”
Ethics and Morals are two different things. You should know that. As for it being a “totalitarian” concept, that’s just stupid. It just a derogatory term aimed at stifling the critiques of comparison, irony, paradox and analogy. It’s a way of masking reprehensible behavior with assumed Moral Superiority – the negation of Moral Equivocation.
“Mr. Chavez is the internationally acknowledged President of Venezuela.”
“Mr. Falwell is (in this country) a well known religious figure.”
“Hopefully everyone is beginning to see the difference between Mr. Chavez and Mr. Falwell.”
Both have significant political power. Both have a Bully Pulpit. Both say over-the-top things. To say that because they have differences they have nothing in common is low-brow Socratic nonsense.
“Mr. Falwell (outside of a rather small following) is considered a joke which this recent episode of “foot in mouth” has done nothing to improve.”
Where the hell have you been, Evers? Don’t you know who Falwell is? He was the founder of the friggin’ Moral Majority! Creator of such human gems as Ralph Reed and Jim Bakker! He’s had the ears of powerful politicians. And he has a “small following?” His insane rantings have been in front of the news for years and years. Evryone knows him. Evryone has an opinion of him. Even you!
Nice try.
Ciao, JMJ
By ken grandlund on Sep 25, 2006 | Reply
I say Evers, were you to work in a produce stand, all the fruits and vegetables would be tossed into a single bin. It seems you’re never able to simply compares apples to apples and instead insist on compaing apples to onions.
Where I compare similar, if not identical situations (demonizing rhetoric, torture) you compare fist fights to nuclear warfare. I’m not surprised though that to you at least such things are identical. You seem to never have a problem extending the hyperbole to ridiculous lengths.
Falwell has the ear of at least as many people as reside in Venezuela, hardly small in terms of real numbers. To assert that his influence stops at the end of his altar or at the steps of his ’school’ is simply absurd, not based in reality, and invariably dishonest.
By H. Evers on Sep 25, 2006 | Reply
Dear Mr. Grandlund,
It appears that you actually believe in the “Vast Right –Wing Conspiracy” theory of modern politics. That Mr. Falwell and his “Moral Majority” control throngs of “mindless minions” who vote as directed. With this unseen power he is able to control the government and is working to establish a totalitarian theocracy here in the United States. With such a belief system I can see why you consider this relatively sad figure a threat and even more important than Mr Chavez. Well have fun with your fantasy and don’t get lost in the paranoria.
All the best
By Dr. Forbush on Sep 25, 2006 | Reply
Evers,
George W Bush owes the occupancy of the White House to a relatively small number of voters in Ohio. Analysis has it that the larger Republican turnout was due to the anti-homosexual marriage prop. on the ballot. The Religious right, organized by Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and the like used this issue to swell the ranks with scare tactics. Based on that evidence I would say that your buddy Mr. Falwell is quite influentual…
By Craig R. Harmon on Sep 25, 2006 | Reply
Well, some Conservative Christian needs to go on record saying that Falwell’s comments, tongue in cheek or not (and without a video or at least an audio recording of what he said, one can’t say one way or another), his comment casts Senator Clinton in a comparison with the devil in which Ms. Clinton comes out on the worse end of the comparison. Whether the comments were delivered in tongue in cheek mode or a serious exposition of Falwell’s opinion of her position relative to Satan does make some difference, it only slightly mitigates his guilt, it doesn’t remove it.
I have no idea how many followers Falwell has or to what degree he has the ear of the President or any other seat of power in this country or to what degree those power-brokers take Falwell’s opinions and wishes seriously. My guess is that they will make all kinds of positive sounding noises in his presence to get and keep the support of him and his followers but when it comes to actual policy, they ignore him soundly and any similarities in the power-brokers’ actions and Falwells wishes are purely coincidence. I think the Theocracy fears of many here are vastly overblown but that’s just my impression.
I am among those people who, as Ken said, don’t take Falwell seriously but he is a high enough profile personage that publically criticizing his public pronouncements is justly warranted.
By Craig R. Harmon on Sep 25, 2006 | Reply
Doctor Forbush,
This is nonsense. He ows his presidency to some 63 million voters.
By SteveIL on Sep 25, 2006 | Reply
I believe H. Evers, Potfry, and I all stated that Falwell’s comments were useless and stupid, and that this is believed by a great many people in this country, even those of us who call ourselves conservatives (I am; I am not speaking for the other two). I am not a member of Falwell’s church, and in no way affiliated with the Religious Right (I am a non-practicing Catholic).
Again, what we are saying is that there is a difference when a non-politician says something as stupid as what is said by a head of state. Not only does Chavez have an army, he also has a treasury, and is working on personally owning everything of value in Venezuela, and is using his real political power to do it, even force. Falwell has influence, but this is not the same as political power. If you don’t see the difference, that is a problem you need to address.
By Dr. Forbush on Sep 25, 2006 | Reply
SteveL,
So, when Bush points to three countries and calls them the “Axis of Evil” he is wrong in the same way that Chavez is wrong? Or, when Reagan called the Soviet Union the “Evil Empire,” he is wrong in the same way that Chavez is wrong? They were both heads of state with all that political power that you mention. What is the difference there, except that you like Bush and Reagan, but you dislike Chavez?
By Chris on Sep 25, 2006 | Reply
Actually he is just repeating the views of a large part of the world. Here is a poll from 1-19-2005 http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2005/01_january/19/bush.shtml. Things could only have gotten worse since then.
Certianly I can see why Mr. Chavez would be upset with Bush. Look at our past history.
We engineered Panama’s break away from Columbia.
We started the war that brought Texas into the Union.
We invaded Mexico to go after Poncho Villa.
We invaded Grenada.
We occupied Haiti for 19 years and invaded 60 years later.
We sponsorred the Bay of Pigs.
I believe but am not sure that we tried to assainate Castro.
We support Pinochet when he over threw the democratical elected government of Chile and started a reign of terror.
We gave support to the group the over threw Chavez for a brief time.
We supported the contra’s in Nicaraqua.
We created the Banana Republics.
Now we have a president who amkes up facts to invade countries under a doctrine of pre-emptive strikes. I do not blame him for being a bit paranoid.
By SteveIL on Sep 25, 2006 | Reply
Dr.,
What was not evil about the government and leaders of the Soviet Union? Remember, that government murdered about 50,000,000 of its own people and enslaved another 50,000,000 people (and maybe more) in other countries.
What was not evil about the governments and their leaders of Bush’s “Axis of Evil”, Iraq, Iran, and North Korea? Remember, we’ve been the “Great Satan as part of the propaganda of the Iranian government, and murders 16 year-old female rape victims by claiming they were being executed for adultery and lying on their execution warrants that they were 22 years old, not to mention executing homosexuals for being homosexuals. Saddam Hussein murdered a million Iranians in his illegal war, and murdered another million of his own people since he came to power in 1979. Kim Jong Il starves his people to death so that he can remain comfortable and keep his military on constant full alert.
Tell me why Reagan and Bush were wrong about the governments of those countries.
By SteveIL on Sep 25, 2006 | Reply
Chris,
Except for the part about our supporting those that tried to overthrow Chavez, my guess is that he couldn’t care less about what we did. Do you believe it is OK for Chavez to steal every company in Venezuela, make himself rich doing it, and keeping his people poor in order to maintain his power (he is on a big military purchase spree, claiming it’s for defense; that’s a lie).
Other than Bay of Pigs, the only thing we’ve done is isolate Castro (Chavez’s hero for the moment). Just because Castro won’t unload his hundreds of millions to actually rebuild his country goes to show he’s one of the worst exploiters of the people, and killing them when they complain. Chavez is learning his lessons well.
By Dr. Forbush on Sep 25, 2006 | Reply
SteveL,
If using the past to justify the present, then all of the items on Chris’ list would justify Hugo Chavez’s depiction of Bush as the Devil. But, of course he did it with humorous illusion, which makes it even more fitting.
The point is that leaders shouldn’t go around calling people or countries names. Its just common sense. It doesn’t matter if its true or not. Chavez shouldn’t do it, and Bush shouldn’t do it. If you can’t see that agreeing with one and not the other is hypocrisy, then I can’t help your mental state….
By Craig R. Harmon on Sep 25, 2006 | Reply
They helped us win WWII and they backed down from our blockade to Cuba.
Saddam was just fine with us when we wanted him to play hell with Iran.
Iran has a great interest in promoting the morals of their people.
Kim Jong Il is strong on national defense.
Okay, those last two are a stretch. Still, the Iranians are quite keen of their government’s insistence that Iran pursue its nuclear program. While the Mullah run Government may not be popular overall, their stand on the nuclear issue is quite popular with the people. That’s gotta count for something. I mean, how popular is Bush with the American people these days. Breaking back into the 40s in his approval ratings isn’t exactly a ringing endorcement.
Kim Jong Il is strong on national defense.
Sorry, I can’t come up with anything better.
By Dr. Forbush on Sep 25, 2006 | Reply
SteveL,
How did you become the judge of the mental state of anyone? Are phoning in a diagnostic analysis like Frist? Chavez is becoming a powerful Latin American leader with the help of the USA. Every time he stands up to the US or mocks Bush he scores points with the wider Latin American community. If the USA cared about him becoming powerful, then they would drop the comments about him. But, those who can’t let things go continue to give him the power he is looking for…
By steve on Sep 25, 2006 | Reply
Oh fuck… where to begin:
1. When Bush made his famous Axis of Evil statement were Iran, Korea and Iraq, peaceful members of the world community? This is a yes or no question.
2. Does Jerry Falwell have an Army? This is a yes or no question
3. Is Jerry Falwell an elected official? This is a yes or no question.
4. Does Jerry Falwell make the laws of a country? This is a yes or no question.
5. Should you as an American citizen believe Hugo Chavez has a strong belief in your safety? This is a yes or no question.
6 Did John Kerry or Al Gore win the last 2 Presidential Elections?
Answers: no, no, no, no, no and no.
Answer yes to any of those question and can do so with some long boring drawn out post (aka Dr. Forbush-style), then may I offer you a can of “Shut the Fuck Up and Get A Life”?
Sorry to be blunt but you poseurs of leftist intentions need it once in while.
I cannot believe this post made the BIO headline today.
By SteveIL on Sep 25, 2006 | Reply
Dr.,
But he wasn’t funny.
You didn’t even answer my questions. Why not?
You know, I don’t remember Bush saying a single word regarding Chavez and his rant. So far, the only ones publicly speaking out against Chavez are Madeline Albright, Charlie Rangel, Nancy Pelosi, Rick Santorum, radio personalities, and ordinary people like you and me.
Chavez is a Castro wannabe. If you don’t see it, too bad. I would recommend you learn about how Mafia bosses get rich, and then you’ll see that Chavez (and a Castro) does the same thing on a much bigger scale.
Personally, if I were Bush (and he should do this, but won’t), he would have called some Venezuelan general, tell him that we’re going to give his country $10,000,000,000 in foreign aid if said general overthrows Chavez and becomes a friend of ours (the US), and kick out all Iranian, Cuban, Chinese, and Russian “advisors” (spies) in Venezuela. We would have kept Chavez and his minions on ice until the coup was complete, then deport the lot of them to Cuba and let Castro take care of them. That is political power, and something a Chavez could do, but not Falwell.
By SteveIL on Sep 25, 2006 | Reply
Craig,
The people of the Soviet Union deserves all the credit anybody can give them for the sacrifice they made to defeat the Nazis. Of course, Stalin and the Soviet government did collaborate with Hitler between Sept. 1939 and June, 1941.
I think the rating of Ahmadinejad and the mullahs, if known, would be much lower than Bush’s lowest rating. We’ll never find out while the mullahs are in power as they control the press. And I’ve read some Iranian blogs that point out that the Iranian government’s stance on nukes is more troubling than a source of pride.
As far as Iraq, we supported a lot of bad people, including Saddam Hussein. But, I look at it this way; every foreign policy decision during the Cold War was made with the looming potential annihilation of all peoples had the US and USSR decided to launch nukes at each other. Think about it. LBJ put in enough troops into South Vietnam to allow them to conquer North Vietnam, which would have pissed off their ally (and armorer), the Soviet Union. Carter wasn’t really able to do much about the Soviet invasion in Afghanistan because there could have been a direct battle between us and the Soviets, not anything anybody wanted. The US did all it could to stem Communism without antagonizing the Soviets too much. These Presidents practiced Realpolitik and kept both countries from destroying the world with a nuclear war. Even Reagan did so by keeping from pissing off Gorbachev too much, but also by standing firm at the right times.
BTW, loved the line regarding Kim Jong Il.
By Craig R. Harmon on Sep 25, 2006 | Reply
You’ll have to add Rice to that list. Her non-comment comment was obviously a put down of Chavez.
By Craig R. Harmon on Sep 25, 2006 | Reply
And when word comes out that we tried to pull a Pat Robertson by bribing someone to take out Chavez? Chavez only gains power and prestige in the world and we sink further.
Venezuela has oil. What do they need with our aid?
By ken grandlund on Sep 26, 2006 | Reply
Steve-
“I can’t believe this post made the BIO headline today.”
We work on a fixed top post schedule here Steve. It was my day to post up top and I can pretty much write what I choose. Deal with it.
By Paul Watson The Cranky Brit on Sep 26, 2006 | Reply
steve,
When Chavez made his speech was the US a peaceful member of the world community? This is a yes or no question.
By SteveIL on Sep 26, 2006 | Reply
Craig,
My example was just that, an example of real political power, something Jerry Falwell doesn’t have. That was mentioned at the end of the paragraph you cite (but did not display).
By christopher Radulich on Sep 26, 2006 | Reply
Where was the uproar when Rumsfield compared Chavez to Hitler in February?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/03/politics/main1279205.shtml
By steve on Sep 26, 2006 | Reply
Paul,
Yes.
Thanks for playing, I noticed though you avoided my questions like a typical liberal and chose not to answer. Ken avoided them as well.
By Paul Watson The Cranky Brit on Sep 26, 2006 | Reply
I guess invading two countries and threatening four more with force counts as peaceful then. Under those criteria, Iran, Iraq and Noroth Korea are all peaceful as well.
By Craig R. Harmon on Sep 26, 2006 | Reply
Paul,
I laughed out loud at that one (Comment #33).
By Paul Watson The Cranky Brit on Sep 26, 2006 | Reply
In a good way or in a ‘is he so stupid he really thinks that’ way?
By Craig R. Harmon on Sep 26, 2006 | Reply
Paul,
In a good way. It turned Steve’s comment on its head and was absolutely true. Good one.