Tuesday, July 12, 2005

On Slanderous Statements

I was called into work early yesterday, and the first part of my day took longer than usual, so as a result, I didn't have a lot of time to formulate a good post. I basically just typed out what I had on my mind at the moment.

Normally I refrain from commenting on the Hollywood types and their political opinions, because, quite frankly, I don't have a lot of respect for their opinions, since they are usually no better informed than I. Usually, in fact, they are less informed than I. I'll give an example: Rosie O'Donnell was guest hosting "the View" a couple of weeks ago, and, coincidently, conservative talk show host, Sean Hannity was a guest. During the inevitable argument, Rosie and Sean being polar opposites, and both typically stubbornly Irish, Rosie got shrill and visibly upset and started shouting, "Abble Grabble" or something like that. She meant, of course, Abu Ghraib, but like I say, most of those Hollywood types are sadly misinformed.

So, that's my excuse. Apology offered.

I recently came across a blog by a guy that I never heard of but apparently is quite a well known journalist and author. He has even done guest appearances on Imus in the Morning, and is apparently a commentator on MSNBC. His name is Craig Crawford.

Anyway, I left a comment. Mine was one of the first comments made to that post. Afterwards, other folks made comments, and I was a little surprised at the liberal bias reflected in them. I will attempt to respond to some of them here.

First thing I noticed was this statement:

"I guess I am one of those pissed off at Judy Miller for her articles claiming that the U.S. found WMD in Iraq. I hope she stays in jail a long time."

My response: It "pisses" you off that there is a possibility that WMD's exist? Why?
If the revelation that there are indeed WMD's in Iraq, wouldn't that make you feel better about the U.S. being there? Why would it anger you to be assured that we are there for the right reason? It surely sounds as if you don't want Bush to be proven right. I would think if you seriously care about your country as you say, you would want it to be true. You know what I think? I think you hate Bush so badly that it matters not that people are dying for their country and for freedom, as long as you can convince yourself and others that Bush is an evil man. And I'll say what I said on Craig's blog. That is pathetic. I didn't even mention the fact that you wish hardship on a fellow human being. That's real Liberal compassion there, friend. You must be a hit at parties.

Here's another "compassionate" statement found in a different comment on the same site:

"Consider that we have twice elected a President who has difficulty expressing a coherent thought..."

(sigh) Here we go again. Where do you get the idea that President Bush is not intelligent? It certainly doesn't show up in his academic record. He graduated from Yale. That isn't exactly Whatsamatta U! And his grades were no worse than the darling of the Democrats (no offense, ER, if you didn't vote for him), John (flip flop) Kerry. Besides, I sincerely doubt anyone could achieve the office of president if he was a moron. For the sake of argument, even if he didn't win the election in 2000, he was still smart enough to come in second. But we all know he won fair and square. Besides that, what proof do you have of his supposed lack of intelligence? Want to know what I think? I think you just hate Bush so much that you are willing to either believe previous lies told about him without any evidence to back it up, or you made it up yourself, but I sincerely don't think you have enough intelligence, yourself to think something that imaginative up. I'm sorry, I don't like to say things that are mean spirited. I don't want to make anyone think I'm a liberal.

Now let me tackle a statement made in my own blogs comment section:

Ann Coulter is only hard to read because she never uses facts...She gives fraudulent examples and gives false sources. Mark said the last "book" he bought was by Ed Klein...I thought you were talking literature here. Ed Klein smears Hillary with the same venom as the Republicans Smear our Veterans and current United States Service Men And Women.

Oh really. Ann Coulter's book that I am currently reading has 46 pages of the sources from where she got her information. In small print. So much for that claim.

And it is obvious you never read the book by Klein. He doesn't smear her. In fact, he repeatedly compliments her political savvy. The rest of what he writes about her is pretty much common knowledge. There is very little in his book that we didn't already know about her, or at least suspect. Frankly, I was a little disappointed that he didn't slam her as much as he could have, but he refused to put anything in the book that he didn't have absolute confirmation on. It would have made for a better read in my view. And lets not forget that Mr Klein is a liberal himself.

And where in the world did you get the idea that Republicans smear veterans and our servicemen? That is just patently absurd. You must be drunk or mistaking them for Liberals.

Another slander:

"...how many Presidents have we had who cannot speak in complete sentences, chew a pretzel or ride a bike?"

I've already addressed the intelligence angle. That statement is quite simply, false.
As to the rest of the comment, that is so typical of the liberal attitude. I've said it often. Liberals start name calling when they can't back up their allegations. You have proved me right again. I've read the part of the constitution that outlines the qualifications one needs to become president. Guess what? It doesn't mention that a president needs to be physically coordinated. I heard the story of the president running into a guy with his bike, but so what? Does that somehow make him incompetent to lead the most powerful nation on Earth?

Let me explain this to you so that even you can understand. Bush has integrity. Anyone that resorts to unfounded baseless slanders, name calling, innuendo, and personal attacks that have nothing to do with the issue has little.

You are dismissed now.

12 comments:

frogs said...

Mark.......I do agree with everything u said about Bush......I am a Bush voter....but I do think it is time to remove our men from Iraq......those people have been so devastated by there own and now by Americans.....the reason I know this is because I know of several men who are serving there......and it is an atrocity what the innocent have endured. It is time to leave them to find peace and rebuild.

The WordSmith from Nantucket said...

First thing I noticed was this statement:

"I guess I am one of those pissed off at Judy Miller for her articles claiming that the U.S. found WMD in Iraq. I hope she stays in jail a long time."


Not defending this, as I agree with your take on it; but that person might have also simply meant he hopes she gets jailed for claiming a "falsehood".

My understanding, as far as wmds (which should be called wmd or wsmd) is that no stockpiles have been found. Doesn't change my opinion that removing Saddam is a good thing and for good reasons, of which the threat of wmds was one of about 4 reasons presented in the overall case for war.

"Consider that we have twice elected a President who has difficulty expressing a coherent thought..."

This is one of those caricature misperceptions pushed by the media. Doesn't bother me. Nothing quite like being misunderestimated by the opposition....I consider it an advantage.

Funny how the Hollywood types criticize the Bush Administration in such a way that you'd think they were far better educated. Their educational background doesn't even compare to the overall background of the people on President Bush's team; especially when you consider how many of these critics of President Bush are high school dropouts and such. And they expect me to listen to them pontificate on foreign policy and economics, like they are qualified experts? Please.....

As far as the snide remark on pretzels and bicycles, relax. It's comforting to know that this is about as best the Bush-bashers can come up with for reasons to back up their anti-Bush posturings. I wouldn't worry about his "physical coordination" either, Mark. Remember: he runs religiously every morning and is in great shape. Seriously.

Oh, and as far as your admission to him losing the popular vote in 2000; don't forget that Clinton in both elections lost the popular vote.

frogs said...
Mark.......I do agree with everything u said about Bush......I am a Bush voter....but I do think it is time to remove our men from Iraq......those people have been so devastated by there own and now by Americans.....the reason I know this is because I know of several men who are serving there......and it is an atrocity what the innocent have endured. It is time to leave them to find peace and rebuild.

The Iraqis are suffering at the hands of foreign fighters. Not Coalition Forces. And you might talk again with your buddies serving over there. I haven't met a single one who's felt sorry for being over there; and they say that the majority of Iraqis don't want them to leave until they are safe and secure. Over 80% of the "insurgents" are not Iraqi patriots but well-paid fighters, who are not working cheaply (attacks earn about $1600 up from about $50 right after major combat operations ended). In other words, fighting the democratization of Iraq is expensive business on the part of the insurgency.

You do not want to turn this into another Vietnam, frogs, by prematurely leaving before the job is done. Look at the millions of lives ruined because we abandoned our allies in Vietnam. That was not the right way to finish the war.

And quit reading so much tragedy news! There are really positive things going on over there and most of the soldiers who believe in the mission, will tell you that!

Mark said...

Wordsmith, I never made an admission that Bush lost. i prefaced that statement with for the sake of argument. read it again.

The WordSmith from Nantucket said...

No, no....I know you didn't. But what you did state and accurately so, is that President Bush lost the popular vote. Reread MY post.

(^_~)

Erudite Redneck said...

Mark, the rush of people to vote for Bush in Oklahoma like to created a prairie storm. So, I felt safe voting for Kerry, to keep peace in my home, and to preserve my Dem voting record. If I'd thought it was going to be close in Oklahoma, I'd've agonized, again, over the pathetic candidate my party came up with, and, there bein' a war on and all, I mighta even voted to re-elect the president. But I didn't have to, because it wasn't even close here.

By the way, recall that Okie Dems voted for Gen. Clark, perceived to be the most conservative, in the primary -- the only state he carried.

Me and my house went with Edwards in the primary. I am a sectionalist. ANY Southerner beats ANY Yankee, in my book.

tugboatcapn said...

ER, I am originally from NC, and I will tell you from experience that when John Edwards is the southerner, the yankee candidate starts to look better and better...

rich bachelor said...

Well, I still haven't figured out why Novak isn't under indictment yet, by the way.

rich bachelor said...

Since he's the one leaking classified info vital to our national security, etc.
Anyone?

rich bachelor said...

Actually, about the larger text of the post: I think that one can be a fool and become president if one's backers are very shrewd political handlers, and one is sufficiently rich.
I also hold that the opinions of Hollywood figures aren't all that important, really. I just got a bit torqued when I started hearing voices in our cultural discourse saying that they had no right to express their opinions, politically.

Mark said...

I didn't say that Hollywood types don't have a right to say anything. I always maintain anyone has the right to say whatever they want. They also have the right to show their ignorance to the world, which they usually do.

I just don't want to bother giving them credibility by responding to their innane opinions. And I have the right not to respond.

rich bachelor said...

By "voices in our cultural discourse", I didn't mean you, Mark. I heard that from people in the media who are paid to give their opinions for a living, and it creeped me out, because I don't really care what they think either, but they have as much right to say what they want as anyone.
And I don't think that you were saying that they don't, etc. etc........

Mark said...

The unfortunate fact is that many people in the media give way too much credence to what the "stars" have to say. Whether that is because they believe that wealth equates with intelligence (which, is not altogether false, but not usually in the case of Hollywood) or as a result of some unholy alliamce between Hollywood and the media, one can only surmise. But shouldn't the media elite be embarrassed by the shrill protestations of those like Rosie O'Donnell and her ilk when they cover that tripe as "news"?