filkertom: (Default)
[personal profile] filkertom
Fact-checking from ThinkProgress.org, and Cindy Sheehan's version of her illegal and classless arrest minutes before the SOTU Address.

So, what did you think of the SOTU?

(no subject)

Date: 2006-02-01 10:41 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] brithistorian.livejournal.com
Thanks for posting these - I'm up early with the baby and was looking for some news about the SOTU.

(no subject)

Date: 2006-02-01 10:42 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] filkertom.livejournal.com
No prob. Not a lot of analysis yet, and too many liveblogging threads to go over on the big sites.

(no subject)

Date: 2006-02-01 03:04 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] admnaismith.livejournal.com
I avoided it.

As I suspected, Bush saw his shadow, meaning six more years in Iraq. That's all I really needed to know.

(no subject)

Date: 2006-02-01 03:16 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] scifantasy.livejournal.com
It was a short speech, but it was even shorter on content. A friend and I did a play-by-play: http://scifantasy.livejournal.com/184145.html#cutid1

(no subject)

Date: 2006-02-01 04:04 pm (UTC)
poltr1: (Marcus)
From: [personal profile] poltr1
Didn't watch it. I was watching the hockey game on OLN last night.

Who won the game -- Colorado or Minnesota?

(no subject)

Date: 2006-02-01 05:17 pm (UTC)

(no subject)

Date: 2006-02-01 06:06 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] sylverwolfe.livejournal.com
i didn't watch. i left my tv entirely off and sunk into my fantasy world with the help of the Myth-Adventures of Aahz and Skeeve.
too bad we can't elect fictional characters as president. i think we could stand a Pervect or two in the regime, just to clean things up a bit. failing that, one of Foglio's jagermonsters would do nicely.
/hopeful, deluded fantasy world

(no subject)

Date: 2006-02-01 06:42 pm (UTC)
batyatoon: (Default)
From: [personal profile] batyatoon
What I thought of the SOTU? Was mostly about what I expected to think: a variation on the ever-popular theme of *froth rage spit stomp smash*.

(no subject)

Date: 2006-02-01 11:03 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] kimpire.livejournal.com
Uh-huh.

Note that this has nothing to do with stifling dissent - it's against the law to wear any political slogan there. Even pro-war ones. (http://www.tampabays10.com/news/news.aspx?storyid=24740)

(no subject)

Date: 2006-02-01 11:54 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] filkertom.livejournal.com
Now, y'see? This is how the media play with people's minds. I dunno about anyone else, but I consider Cindy Sheehan's T-shirt ("2245 Dead - How Many More?") to be just as supportive of the troops as "Support the Troops". But you, at least, and presumably lots of other people, interpret the latter to be "pro-war".

Now, "Liberate Iraq" or "Nuke The Bastards", those I would consider pro-war.

More to the point, remember that being pro-war does not automatically mean you are pro-this war.

The upshot is: The current dialogue has been corrupted, or perhaps co-opted, to equate supporting the troops with supporting the mission. But it is demonstrably simple to do the one without the other -- for example, the way that BushCo keeps us in Iraq and Afghanistan while cutting pay and benefits for troops and using stop-loss to extend their tours.

(no subject)

Date: 2006-02-02 12:11 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] kimpire.livejournal.com
Your overanalysis of my comment completely misses the point. Sheehan's arrest was neither illegal nor classless.

(no subject)

Date: 2006-02-02 12:29 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] filkertom.livejournal.com
Uh-huh.

Which is why all charges have been dropped (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/2/1/192341/6915) because she didn't violate any rules or laws. And the officer who removed Rep. Young's wife should never have approached her, either.

Which makes it "stifling dissent".

(no subject)

Date: 2006-02-02 12:35 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] kimpire.livejournal.com
That's when you ask questions like what law did they think she was breaking, and why wasn't she, after all, breaking it, before you have a knee-jerk reaction that it was stifling dissent.

Also, explain to me how throwing out Rep. Young's wife, who was wearing a shirt ostensibly in support of the war, falls under "stifling dissent".

(no subject)

Date: 2006-02-02 12:42 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] filkertom.livejournal.com
Hasn't it occured to you that they should've maybe asked the question before they arrested Sheehan? That's the real knee-jerk reaction here. She wore a message which somebody or other decided was embarassing or harassing to the president, and therefore they busted her and took her out, even though it turned out (surprise!) that she had done nothing wrong.

I'll give you the removal of Rep. Young's wife as not "stifling dissent", although in its own way the message on her shirt was still a political statement. My first thought was that the removal was literally a cover action: "See, we removed people of both political persuasions! Therefore, our overruling of the First Amendment is perfectely fine."

(no subject)

Date: 2006-02-02 12:49 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] kimpire.livejournal.com
I half-disagree with your first point; my working assumption is that they did ask the question but arrived at the wrong answer. I want to know what they were thinking before I accuse them of stifling dissent.

I doubt they just did it to throw Sheehan out; after all, what could she possibly do within the House chamber that would be more embarrassing to the President than arresting her for no reason? Cause a scene? Start yelling random things? That would be more embarrassing to Sheehan than anybody else. Sure, if she was in the House chamber, that means the anti-war T-shirt would get its play on the networks during the course of the speech - but that's far less time than has probably been handed to covering the arrest story since.

So either the Capitol police are *both* highly partisan and highly inept, or they're just stupid. Which option you choose, I suppose, depends on your level of cynicism.

(no subject)

Date: 2006-02-02 01:10 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] filkertom.livejournal.com
Hate to say this, but, regarding your last statement -- look at the last five years of BushCo and say that again. My level of cynicism is roughly at the third ring of Saturn these days.

(no subject)

Date: 2006-02-02 01:23 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] kimpire.livejournal.com
Well, given that I approve of most of what this administration has done, and given that you disapprove, that sort of disagreement is to be expected.

(no subject)

Date: 2006-02-02 01:32 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] filkertom.livejournal.com
Ahhh. Just so you know, you're not likely to agree with me a lot here, then. I have a few conservative friends (most prominently [livejournal.com profile] billroper) with whom I try not to get into political debates online anymore, so as not to risk the friendship. In a lot of ways, we're equally convinced we're right, and so convincing the other person just isn't going to happen.

(no subject)

Date: 2006-02-02 01:33 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] kimpire.livejournal.com
Hehehehehe... you've been on my friends list a looooong time. I already know that I agree with you on basically nothing ^_^

(no subject)

Date: 2006-02-02 05:54 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] trdsf.livejournal.com
All I know is, I couldn't have made it through any of it without Air America's "Political Science Theater 3000". Yeah, they MSTed it live. Didn't do a very good job, but God knows Seder and company were a lot more fun to listen to than Prince Shithead.

March 2014

S M T W T F S
      1
2 3 456 78
9101112131415
1617 1819202122
23242526272829
3031     

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jan. 24th, 2026 02:24 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios