Politico's Martin again uncritically quoted "most liberal" charge against Obama
SUMMARY: Jonathan Martin uncritically quoted Regnery Publishing president Marjory Ross saying of Sen. Barack Obama, "He's the No. 1 most liberal member of the U.S. Senate, and nobody has really examined his record." Ross was apparently referring to the National Journal's 2007 Vote Ratings. Martin did not cite any criticism of the study's subjectivity -- including criticism by Obama during a February interview with Politico -- or note that a more comprehensive study reached a different result.
In a June 23 article, Politico senior political writer Jonathan Martin uncritically quoted Regnery Publishing president Marjory Ross saying of Sen. Barack Obama, "He's the No. 1 most liberal member of the U.S. Senate, and nobody has really examined his record." Ross was apparently referring to the results of National Journal's 2007 Vote Ratings, which were based on votes selected by National Journal staff. As he has also done previously, Martin reported the "most liberal" charge against Obama without citing any criticism of the National Journal study's subjectivity, mentioning that a more comprehensive vote study did not rate Obama "most liberal," or even noting criticism of the study lodged by Obama himself during an interview with Politico.
During a February 11 Politico/WJLA-TV interview, Obama responded to a question by Politico editor-in-chief John F. Harris about the Journal's 2007 vote ratings, saying, "[A]n example of why I was rated the most liberal was because I wanted an office of public integrity that stood outside of the Senate, and outside of Congress, to make sure that you've got an impartial eye on ethics problems inside of Congress. Now, I didn't know that it was a liberal or Democratic issue. I thought that was a good government issue that a lot of Republicans would like to see."
Indeed, as Media Matters for America has repeatedly documented, the National Journal based its rankings not on all votes cast by senators in 2007, but on "99 key Senate votes, selected by NJ reporters and editors, to place every senator on a liberal-to-conservative scale." In addition to the vote Obama cited in the Politico interview, among the votes he cast that contributed to National Journal's "most liberal senator" label were those to implement the 9-11 Commission's homeland security recommendations, provide more children with health insurance, expand federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research, and maintain a federal minimum wage.
By contrast, a study by political science professors Keith Poole and Jeff Lewis that used every non-unanimous vote cast in the Senate in 2007 to determine relative ideology placed Obama in a tie for the ranking of 10th most liberal senator. In a June 16 PolitiFact.com article analyzing the National Journal ratings, St. Petersburg Times Washington bureau chief and PolitiFact editor Bill Adair reported on the differences between the National Journal vote ratings and the Poole-Lewis "Voteview" study:
National Journal relies largely on the judgment of its editors and reporters. They choose votes that they believe show ideological distinctions (they chose to include 99 of the 442 Senate votes last year) and they decide which side in the vote is liberal and which is conservative. Then they compute how often senators and House members vote each way.
[...]
Voteview uses a complicated calculation based on patterns of how often each member of Congress votes with other members. The program determines the patterns from hundreds of votes and plots each member on a liberal-conservative spectrum.
Adair also reported that the "Voteview approach is widely praised by political scientists because it has been very accurate at predicting how members vote" and noted that National Journal editor Charles Green "says voters shouldn't rely on a single rating to determine a candidate's ideology. 'There's pluses and minuses to each rating system. If you look at a number of them, I think you have a pretty good picture,' he said."
Media Matters has documented instances in which Martin and Politico staff writer Josh Kraushaar uncritically reported the National Journal ratings and also noted that Harris and Politico executive editor Jim VandeHei subsequently misrepresented Obama's statement from the February 11 interview in a March 18 article.
From the June 23 Politico article:
In an effort to tarnish his cultivated image as a reformer, the book will examine Obama's relationship with members of the Windy City's vaunted politician machine, including Mayor Richard M. Daley.
[Conservative writer David] Freddoso also will probe Obama's ties to more radical Chicago figures including the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, his former pastor at Trinity United Church of Christ, and William Ayers, the Hyde Park resident and former Weatherman.
Moving to the national stage, the book will argue that Obama's political views are far to the left of the mainstream. "He's the No. 1 most liberal member of the U.S. Senate, and nobody has really examined his record," says Ross.
Unlike his primary rival Hillary Rodham Clinton, there is no canon of negative books about Obama. Thanks to his rapid rise on the national political scene, the two most influential books devoted to his life were written by Obama himself, who hardly counts as a disinterested observer.
Duuuuhhhhhhhhh... I don' unnerstand. If liberal is good, why MMFA say not true ?
Was I first?
Thanks for getting it, T-Hone. I just knew the same posters were going to go through another day of not getting the basic idea.
I don't know what sort of pleasure people get out of trying to not understand things. What sort of satisfaction comes from declaring victory by being so thick that you can maintain your position in spite of all the facts?
I guess some take what they can get. ;0)
Most, least or just right...er I mean just centrist.
Obviously Colonel some in the media think Liberal is a scary word to some folks. So if he's the most Liberal, well that's chilling :-O
But if he's not the most Liberal then of course it's mis-information. Hey to me a Liberal is a Liberal, unless they're a Moonbat. Now that's scary!!!
P.S. Yeah you were first, so you get a prize. A day at the "beach" & a bucket full of KFC :-)
I'm curious Colonel, a couple quick questions;
1) Is liberal bad or good?
2) Is being "charged" "most liberal" just a charge, as in the MMFA headline, or is it an out and out attack?
3) If "most liberal" is not acceptable, is "not the most liberal" better?, or what adjective is preferred on the left to indicate the level of liberalism?
Thanks in advance.
"Is being "charged" "most liberal" just a charge, as in the MMFA headline, or is it an out and out attack?"
It is becoming clearer and clearer that you must have a "sieve" for a brain, instead of a sponge. Every time this comes up YOU say the same stupid thing and EVERY TIME someon has to explain YET AGAIN that it isn't the charge of "most liberal" that is the problem. The problem is that it is a LIE being broadcast by someone in the news media as the truth.
Why is it so hard for you to grasp? If it was true he was the most liberal these would not be here at all. Maybe you need to have it tattooed in reverse on your forehead so you see it every time you look in the mirror: Obama is NOT THE MOST LIBERAL SENATOR and whoever says he is is LIEING - and THAT'S why it's on MMFA
Embrace your liberalism my friend, stop running from it like it's some fatal disease. When people see that they wonder why that is? And why is it that conservatives never cry foul when the are labeled the "most" conservative?
Just asking...
PS. Obama is far from the most Liberal senator...there is a fella in VT holds that title. Then again it used to be John Kerry. And before that it was Gore. Tommy, gentlemens wager, I bet whomever the Dems run next election is the most Liberal guy too. Apparently it's just how we roll.
"Embrace your liberalism my friend, stop running from it like it's some fatal disease"
OMG! You really DO have a sieve instead of brains.
Someday we should reclaim the word. It is an honorable place to be in politics and the world, and we should embrace it. I don't know who it will be, butt someday some politician will say:
"They call me a liberal. They think it's an insult. I welcome the term.
Liberals brought us the 40-day work week.
Liberals brought us Social Security.
Liberals brought the vote to women and minorities.
Liberals wrote the US Constitution, and liberals brought an end to slavery.
I am a liberal. I am proud to be a liberal, in the tradition of Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, Martin Luther King, Robert Kennedy, and Barack Obama. Call me a liberal. That's what I am, and that's what I will be to my last, dying breath: a proud liberal."
We may also, someday, proudly reclaim the word, "feminist." I hope.
1) Is liberal bad or good?
Very subjective. If you tend to be more "liberal", it's good. If you're a conservative, it's bad.I know, that moral relativism stuff makes you crazy, but that's how things are in the reality based community.
2) Is being "charged" "most liberal" just a charge, as in the MMFA headline, or is it an out and out attack?
It's just a statement, IMO. It can be used as an attack by somebody who is speaking to an audience that considers "liberal" bad.This can be set up by first making sure the word "liberal" is widely misrepresented to that audience through propaganda.
3) If "most liberal" is not acceptable, is "not the most liberal" better?,
If either is untrue, based on faulty definitions, or being used as propaganda,then they're all pretty worthless phrases.These are trivial rankings, trying to put objective ratings on subjective ideas. They mean about as much as "Best Song of the Year" or "tastiest pizza".
3a.... or what adjective is preferred on the left to indicate the level of liberalism?
Aside from the fact that I wouldn't try to answer for anybody but myself,let alone some monolithic "the left", I'm not sure what you're trying to ask here.There aren't any different words in Moonbatese or anything, the same modifiers are universal. I'm guessing if "a liberal" wanted to describe someone or something that was "more/less liberal", he would say "more/less liberal".
Which, of course, is not the issue here at all, which adjectives or adverbs are used to measure these things that can't be measured. The issue is the deliberate and calculated abuse of these words to achieve the evil purposes of the right wing army of demons.
I can't believe you're still having trouble with all of this stuff.
“I can't believe you're still having trouble with all of this stuff.” ---Colonel to Tommy
Maybe JFK’s definition of what a liberal actually is will help:
A Liberal Definition by John F. Kennedy:
Acceptance Speech of the New York
Liberal Party Nomination
September 14, 1960
What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of "Liberal." But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."
See entire speech, with a lot more explanation of what a liberal is:
http://www.liberalparty.org/JFKLPAcceptance.html
That's another 180 degree turn from JFK's message of what you can do for your country....there is no entitlement mentality in what JFK said, one that exists today in the level the playing field, income redistribution rhetoric permeating the liberal message in 2008.
I was specifically curious about OTG’s use of the inaugural quote, “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." I saw Kennedy’s message from the earlier speech as compatible with the inaugural which I saw as mostly a warning to foreign powers, and to Americans as a rallying cry for unity against the Soviet menace of that time. Being appropriately strong as a nation to outside threat is not contrary to being liberal---then or now. Of course the threats are much different now. There is much less likelihood for the need of large military forces as there was in Kennedy’s time. (And frankly I think JFK overestimated that need even back then.)
"... JFK also cut taxes on top wage earners, something todays liberals are repulsed by - tommy
Much of today's leftist mindset is what the government and/or country should do for you, what you're owed, what should be provided to you - tommy"
Well look at how that works so well. Tommy sets up a completely false and extreme definition of liberalism/leftism in the exact same debate that has him wondering why liberals fight back against the demonization of their beliefs by the loons on the right.
First of all, JFK's tax cuts still left the highest tax bracket much higher than where today's crop of cut and spend conservatives would like it to be. Secondly to that, it's interesting that you call those in that top bracket "wage earners" as if they were just like you and me and actually performed some sort of daily labor for their outrageous fortunes.
And then there is your application of some sort of freeloader mentality to liberal concern for healthcare reform. Most in favor of some form of single payer government insurance plan know that it won't truly be "Free healthcare" that it will merely be a shift in how healthcare is paid for in hopes that a cohesive, not-for-profit system will provide better access and care for all Americans and help not just citizens but the businesses that employ us which are having more and more difficulties in meeting their own healthcare obligations.
OK, but why not spell out the point you wish to make?
The speech which I referenced was given prior to the election and aimed at Americans. The second was his http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres56.html after being elected and it seems to me was largely for the benefit of the rest of the world.
Still, I don't see how the part you site of the inaugural conflicts with the message of the speech to the Liberal Party.
And yet he challenged Americans in one of his more famous lines,"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." - Oscar The Grouch
So, what's your point? That's a very sound liberal philosophy.
Again, there is a spectrum of political beliefs among the American populace, and the same spectrum among our politicians.
Now, the impression that "most liberal" creates is that Obama is at the far end of said spectrum. There is nobody further "out there" than he is, supposedly. That is an extremist by definition, even if it's a relative measurement.
So who does that play to? Liberals who were going to vote for him anyway? "Obama is the most liberal and McCain is more of a maverick". It doesn't matter if you think "liberal" is good or not, independent and moderate Republican voters are more likely to choose McCain under such a pretense, because they're going to want someone more balanced than extreme. Even if they're sick of Bush and the Republicans of the last seven years, it makes more sense to roll the dice on a free-thinking Republican than a dogmatic extremist on the other side. Even moderate Democrats would be uneasy about such a nominee, since they would have to disagree with several of that candidate's views and know that anyone any further to the right is going to disagree with him even more.
Can you even imagine if someone like Hagel was running and someone claimed he was the most conservative member of Congress? It would be outrageous. More conservative than Tancredo, Sessions, Boehner, Coburn, Inhofe, King, McConnell, Lott, DeMint, Hunter, to name just a handful? Even if you have respect for several conservative ideals, the belief that he is more conservative than all of those people is flat-out frightening. If you wouldn't consider that to be liberal misinformation, I don't know what you would.
By the way, I'm sure that Obama is further to the left than Hagel is to the right. It's just an example to demonstrate how the concept of "if liberal/conservative is good, then being the most liberal/conservative must be great" is completely fallacious.
Didn't you get the memo colonel......
According to the rightwing slime machine:
Liberalism is the death nail of American society.......
I'm so proud to be doing my part!
The new Malkin talking point is "third world countries want to be more like America, and progressives want to make America a third world country!"
Try to keep up Capt, that line was soooo April. ;)
Just a reminder: Regnery Publishing (of which this marjory ross is president) is a publisher for newt gingrich and haley barbour and ann coulter... Regenery also published a book about Sen. John Kerry during the 2004 presidential campaign, titled "Unfit For Command"
Also, bob novak's kid works for Regnery, as their director of marketing.
on June 13th
http://mediamatters.org/items/200806130007#comments
"He's the No. 1 most liberal member of the U.S. Senate, and nobody has really examined his record"
Is it just me finding a glaring contradiction in this statement? If he has been determined somehow to be Liberal Number 1 (With a Bullet!), that must mean that Somebody has examined his record. Not that I agree with the most liberal rating anyway, but clearly some sort of examination, albeit a highly flawed and severely subjective one, was made to determine that.
It's a double attack..."He's really, really liberal, AND no one knows what he's all about"
They just don't get that it's a contradiction. But then again, they don't need to. News today is concerned with printing the "he said/she said" of the American political scene without determining the truth of those statements. Who cares if they contradict themselves, what's right and truthful is for the American people to decide!
I've said this too many times, but America now lives in two alternate, bizarro worlds where what's truth for the left is lies for the right, and vice-versa. Damn you '60s and your historical divide!
Looks like this will be an interesting book. Thus far the media has given Obama a blank check, accepting his excuses for every mis-step or mispoken word. All we know for sure about his background is that he has questionable associates, some of whom, according to Hannity's America, have links to terrorists. His record in the senate essentially is non-existent, and his only positive claim to fame is that he did social work on chicago's south side.
Thomp,
Is this one satire or pure laziness?
Hey Fried,
In reference to a previous thread, did you have the opportunity to read the S. Court's latest decision regarding guantanamo, where apparently for the first time in history the liberal Court conferred "a constitutional right to habeas corpus on alien enemies detained abroad by our military forces in the course of an ongoing war?"
Is it true that there is no precedent that directly supports the court's decision? I've been too busy with work and haven't had the opportunity to sit down and read it. But since you're an attorney, I was wondering whether you had the chance yet . . .
Thomp,
I have not read the whole thing yet, but, as you know, habeus corpus is not confined to citizens by the Constitution. So, by its very nature, the decision was Consitutional.
The Constitution and the applcability of its provisions have been interpreted by the Federal Courts since the days of Justice John Marshall a couple of hundred years ago. Whether Habeus Corpus applies in a situation such as detaining non-citizens in Guantanomo where the USA exercises dominion and control would never be specifically addressed in a document such as the Constitution because each and every circumstance of applicability could never have been anticipated. Thus, the Constitution is interpreted and questions regarding the applicability of its provisions are decided by the Federal courts. That is how it must be, otherwise our Constitution would have never survived all this time.
What they have been granted by the decision is not civillian trials, rather they have been permitted to challenge their detention (Writ of Habeus Corpus) in Federal Court. That is because these people are not formally 'prisoners of war', rather they are accused of supporting terrorism. All the court said is that our government must allow them to challenge their detention in a court of law and that the most recent act setting up the tribunal system did not give them an adequate substitute for the Federal hearing. So, the government will have to try to justify holding these people thru adequate evidence and then try them or release them if they cannot produce adequate evidence. Where exactly is the problem with that? Or should we just permit our government to hold people indefinitely without evidence because someone somewhere with authority believes that they might be a terrorist or criminal?
From a better given reason than I could explain on yahoo answers relying on Constitutional Law by Erwin Chemerinsky.
What I asked you, Thomp, is to show me the legal precedent cited by Scalia in his dissent.
Why do you disagree with the ruling? If it was reversed, would you feel comfortable being detained without a possibility of proving your citizenship if you were designated an enemy combatant?
http://malaysia.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080614131815AAP80Ph
Hey Fried,
I appreciate your response, seriously. Truth is I haven't read scalia's dissent yet, much less any of the opinion. But your analysis suggests that the majority did not base its decision on any kind of strong legal precedent, otherwise you would have cited something on point and the opinion wouldn't be 80 pages.
Nevertheless, what I gather is that the judiciary confers habeas corpus on enemy combatants picked up on foreign battlefields, in a time of war. Obviously the court thereby extends constitutional rights to foreign enemies in, again, a time of war, extending the court's authority into matters that the constitution expressly gives the executive and congress control over.
I yield to your legal expertise, but does it concern you at all that the constitution, to my knowledge, gives the judiciary no authority with respect to the conduct of a war, but reserves power over decisions regarding war to congress and the executive? Is there any language in the constitution that supports such an extension of jurisdiction over the prisoners at guantanamo? (Not being rhetorical)
I've heard that scalia makes a strong argument that the plain terms of the constitution, particularly the clause dealing with the suspension of habeas corpus, indicate exactly the opposite.
It's foolish of me to try and diminish the opinion when I don't know the court's reasoning, so I have no argument, just questions . .. (the liberal court crap was only a joke; it's pretty much down the middle in my opinion)
Thomp,
The problem with the Bush idea of arresting and holding people indefinitely is that citizens could be declared enemy combatants if the Bush administration felt the need. Also, unlike previous wars, the enemy today doesn't wear a uniform making it almost impossible to tell who is a terrorist and who is not. In these times, we need to be absolutely sure that those we are holding are the enemy and not innocents.
Take a look at this article:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_02/008230.php
The bottom line, to me, is that we can't just have our government declare who may or may not be an enemy combatant if they can't prove it. It goes against everything our great country stands for.
Scalia's dissent is pure fear-mongering.
"Nevertheless, what I gather is that the judiciary confers habeas corpus on enemy combatants picked up on foreign battlefields, in a time of war. Obviously the court thereby extends constitutional rights to foreign enemies in, again, a time of war, extending the court's authority into matters that the constitution expressly gives the executive and congress control over."
To expand on what Fried said, if you allow people "picked up on foreign battlefields" to be held indefinitely, then all one has to do is claim that someone was picked up on a foreign battlefield. They could have been taken out of their own backyard in Wichita for all we know, and when would we ever find that out? This is a concern that goes even beyond the "enemy combatant" labeling.
"I yield to your legal expertise, but does it concern you at all that the constitution, to my knowledge, gives the judiciary no authority with respect to the conduct of a war, but reserves power over decisions regarding war to congress and the executive? Is there any language in the constitution that supports such an extension of jurisdiction over the prisoners at guantanamo? (Not being rhetorical)"
The legislative and executive branch have the power to wage and finance wars. Anything that deals with people's rights is clearly a matter of legal analysis, especially when referring to the Constitution. What's more, they could declare the entire war unconstitutional if they saw fit. Right?
To say that the judiciary has no authority regarding the conduct of a war is rather odd. Using an extreme example, imagine if we were bombing predominantly Muslim areas in our own cities. Do you think all they would have to do is to say that it's just how they're conducting the war and then no court could possibly have any say-so regarding the legality of those actions?
I'm not a legal scholar either, but I think there's a pretty distinct line between "decisions regarding war" and potential human rights violations. Are we not bound by the Geneva accords (even if dealing with conventional enemies) if the executive branch determines that torture is part of how the war is being conducted? What if we had a treaty that we were violating by invading a certain country? Would "decisions regarding war" trump the Supremacy Clause? After all, the Constitution grants supremacy to all treaties even over itself ("This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."). Would the Supreme Court have the right to make a decision on that matter?
Brab. I appreciate your posts. You more or less indicated your awareness that I often post dumb sh!t. I get bored at work. I often try to couch something legitimate in some of my posts, but doesn't always work. As far as the other fellow goes, it's comical that he gets so adamantly self-righteous over it, and I'd rather encourage him, as in my view it reveals him to be all the more naive. And I don't have internet connection at home, and can only do this from work. That is why I don't always timely respond.
Your post makes good points, as did Fried's. In terms of the geneva conventions, you're right that we are constitutionally bound by the treaty and it would therefore be unconstitutional to deliberately bomb civilian targets. However, and strictly speaking, it's a reasonable interpretation of the convention that ununiformed enemy combatants, who do not distinguish themselves from ordinary civilians by either carrying their weapons openly or wearing uniforms, are not covered by the convention in trrms of POW status. Terrorists who cut off heads and organize suicide bombings of civilian targets are for sure not covered.
That is not to say that they are left unprotected by other provisions and treaties . ..
And I'm still not sure about whether the court, as opposed to the excecutive and legislative branches, should govern foreign enemies picked up in places such as afghanistan. In dealing with any constitutional issue, I was taught to always view the document as a restriction of power. That is to say, where a governmental body is not granted by a specific constitutional provision the authority to act in a particular manner, then they have no authority.
I'm sure the S. Court's opinion, both the majority and dissent, is incredibly thoughtful and an interesting read. And I won't be surprised to discover that there are compelling legal arguments on both sides. As I mentioned above, without having read the opinion, I'm ill-equipped to offer substantive critiques.
At any rate, back to work . . .
"However, and strictly speaking, it's a reasonable interpretation of the convention that ununiformed enemy combatants, who do not distinguish themselves from ordinary civilians by either carrying their weapons openly or wearing uniforms, are not covered by the convention in trrms of POW status. Terrorists who cut off heads and organize suicide bombings of civilian targets are for sure not covered...That is not to say that they are left unprotected by other provisions and treaties . .."
I wasn't really using the Geneva conventions in any application to terrorists, I was just using it as an example of how the judiciary must be able to have a say in these matters. The whole question is whether any number of these prisoners are actually terrorists. Once that is determined through a legitimate process, then how they are treated after that is a different matter altogether.
"And I'm still not sure about whether the court, as opposed to the excecutive and legislative branches, should govern foreign enemies picked up in places such as afghanistan. In dealing with any constitutional issue, I was taught to always view the document as a restriction of power. That is to say, where a governmental body is not granted by a specific constitutional provision the authority to act in a particular manner, then they have no authority."
But any issue that requires a determination of Constitutional rights is naturally an issue for the judiciary. That is their authority, plain and simple. As in my example, if we launched a war against a nation protected by a treaty we signed, then if the courts can't declare that to be unconstitutional then the treaty might as well not exist at all. There's no possible enforcement there, once the other two branches decide to take such an action. The courts must have some authority even though it's a matter involving war.
The examples I used were primarily to show that matters of war are not all-encompassing in a tight little package. Every single possible aspect of a war is not the exclusive domain of the executive and legislative branches just because they have the power to start that war.
Thomp,
Please also tell me, in your opinion, what makes the SCOTUS a liberal court. Thanks.
Thomp.Steve I see your back with your usual BS. Man you gotta get better sources than Hannity. You guys shickle the tit out of me! Come with something better than that or just say no when you get the urge to type while your head is lodged up your arse!
Come with something better than that or just say no when you get the urge to type while your head is lodged up your arse!
I'm not that talented. Still cannot type while's my heads up my arse, despite the credit that you give me.
Can we at least recognize that he's not stubbornly sticking to a discredited argument and is engaging in reasoned conversation? If he was being dishonest then he wouldn't yield to anyone else's expertise. He's asking questions. If you have answers, why not give them in a civil manner instead of this? If you have a disagreement with one of his premises, why not express it in a controlled fashion?
There's a lot of blather in conservative circles about this decision, a lot of dishonest spin. I appreciate that someone is making the effort to get the contrasting view. I certainly don't agree with everything Steve says, but I can respond to an honest difference of view with a respectful rebuttal. Anything less does a disservice the strength of your own arguments.
I've followed the conversation just fine. It's also my impression from his history of posts that he does not lend any credibility to Hannity, which is why I believe he was asked if that particular post was "satire".
If you can explain to me how his admission that he has not read an 80-page court decision makes him a "stupid fool", I'm willing to listen. It seems hard to justify that, no matter who you're talking about. Even people that I think are pathologically dishonest around here would not deserve that based on such a comment.
I also have the right to express my opinion to anyone here any time I damn well please. I wasn't rude to you at all, I gave you sincere advice and unless you can tell me what's wrong with it any dismissal is simply without merit. I'm just trying to be fair and civil, why this is such a sore spot for you is a mystery.
"I am tired of giving these conservatives any room to maneuver..."
I wonder about this also. Where's the modifier between "these" and "conservatives"? What is it, "dishonest", "misinformed"? Or are you just talking about all conservatives here?
A contrasting viewpoint is not a problem in and of itself. And if you have a case that he's being disingenuous here, make it. That's what I always do, and I think that's also good advice.
On a final note, the fact that he hasn't responded doesn't indicate diddly-squat. Maybe he's spending time with family before he goes to bed. Maybe his internet is out. Maybe he's out of the house. Maybe a neighbor or friend stopped over. There are many possible legitimate reasons for this, so a failure to answer a question within a certain time period doesn't suggest any dishonesty whatsoever.
My apologies, I misread your part about his not answering a question.
"If it was reversed, would you feel comfortable being detained without a possibility of proving your citizenship if you were designated an enemy combatant?"
This would seem to be the question you want answered. I would think that it would be pretty obvious that nobody would be comfortable with that, but that doesn't really address what the legal realities of the situation are. His response made it quite clear that his concern was in regard to the roles of the different branches in this matter, not whether there could be a lack of justice or fairness resulting from it. It's always possible to have potential injustice as an aspect of how a system works.
If he really would be comfortable with such a thing happening to him, I'd be rather surprised. Otherwise I take the lack of response as a concession of that without granting it relevance to the thrust of his questions.
I still repeat don't lecture me BranB. I responded in the way i saw fit to his post you obviously felt different. Granted, you have every right to espress your opinion and I have my right to tell you to kiss my behind and not lecture me. Yes , I meant all conservatives, They do not have any reasoned arguments, and he has used Hannity as a source on more than one occasion. As far as his response or lack of,it could also mean that he got the answer he , you said he was looking for. You obviously were turned off by my approach but I make no apologies to you are to him.
"Yes , I meant all conservatives, They do not have any reasoned arguments, and he has used Hannity as a source on more than one occasion."
If he's really tried to give Hannity credibility then I would criticize him for that as well. I haven't seen those posts, do you know where to find some?
I'll say whatever I like to you, because your attitude is contemptible. If you have a relevant rebuttal I'd love to see it. This "us vs. them" crap is just that. It is divisive and serves to validate more Rovian "ends-justifies-the-means" tactics.
I don't tolerate these sorts of comments from right-wing trolls and I don't tolerate them from anyone else either. And of course I agree that liberals have superior arguments on most issues, otherwise I wouldn't be a liberal. But just like in math class you have to show your work, it doesn't count if you reach a justifiable conclusion if you can't actually justify it. Just saying that someone is stupid or that they have no arguments by itself is meaningless. Some right-wing troll could say the same about you, so what? Prove it. Make the argument, answer the specifics, address the flaws. If it's disingenuous, fallacious, debunked, illogical, then demonstrate how.
As I've argued here before, these types of comments create an impression of equivalence. Conservatives are just plain wrong, liberals are just plain wrong, and there's no additional arguments for people to distinguish who is closer to the truth. It doesn't much matter if you have facts and reason on your side if you create the impression that you don't by making empty generalizations instead.
Again, that's just good advice. But if you can't evaluate it in an adult manner, if you can't handle valid criticism of your behavior, then you're no better than those you rail against so vehemently.
If you were following the post you would see that he posted after the question was asked not before. So your wrong!!! I did make my case as did Fried. I didn't read the 80pg document either,but are you telling me you have? You seem to have an opinion about it how did you reach yours?I reached mine by reading parts of the decision ,discusions about it on Democracy Now, reading Glenn Greenwalds columns just to name few sources,he sited Hannity. That to me is stupid!!!
I admitted that I misread your part about the question some time ago, and I then addressed it more accurately. That doesn't mean I hadn't read the thread. I was thinking of your earlier phrasing of the same thing, and forgot that Fried asked a question (the nature of which you left unspecified) in his second-to-last post as opposed to his last. Again, my apologies for that, I should have re-read that part. No need to get all crazy with the exclamation points and childish taunts there.
Where is the case for his being disingenuous? Fried didn't make that argument either, he just answered the questions posed to him and raised his own concerns about the potential abuse that could take place. That doesn't say anything about whether Steve is posting in good faith or not.
Incidentally, the more I read the "Hannity" post the more it seems that it might just be saying that the author has an awful lot to work with. That doesn't make any conclusions about the credibility of the work. I would like to see him clarify it, but I'm not sure everything you think is there is actually there. Also, where does he "cite Hannity" in regards to the decision, exactly? If it's based on a separate thread please direct me to it, because I haven't read it.
On that subject, I've learned what I can from some of the same sources as you. I didn't claim to have read it in it's entirety, I was just pointing out that it's hardly valid criticism to say that he hasn't read it when he's making an effort to ask a lawyer who he knows is liberal what he thinks of it, while yielding to his opinion and even going so far as to admit that he's not making an argument but just asking questions. Why is it stupid that he hasn't read Greenwald but instead tries to clarify the matter through someone else with a similarly opposing viewpoint?
Again, you said "You admit you haven't even read the decision, you are not only a fool , you are a stupid fool!". "Even" in particular suggests that anyone who discusses this topic at all should have read the decision. It suggests that it's something so quick and easy to do that one should be ashamed for failure to do so, while neither you or Fried has done so either. That is clearly invalid criticism, regardless of whether he actually did cite Hannity or not.
See, now there's an actual argument in there. You could just say that sort of thing instead of being hostile and dismissive of anyone who doesn't share your philosophy. You would come off as much more reasonable.
It's not odd at all for me to defend someone who's being treated unfairly. It doesn't much matter who it is. I may disagree with Steve and he is often sarcastic, but I don't consider him to be a troll. I don't accept that combative attitude, and your lack of a response tells me you can't very well defend it.
I'm still waiting to hear where you got your claim that he "cited Hannity" when talking about the court decision. I own up to my words, do you?
Thomp.Steve are you being sarcastic here? Excuse me I can't tell ? Yes the decision is cut and dry and for Scalia to use discredited lies to justify his discension from the majority decision shows just how weak his argument is. Yes I am very narrow minded when it comes to BS, and no amount of semantical calisthenics you try perform can make a very simple decision into a complex one. The 5-4 decision is not the result of the complexity of the issue but how far our judicial system has slid to the right. Unprecedented?? BS!
Tell me ,before you label me "terrorist" and deprive me of my "right' to liberty indefinitely is there any rights you think I should have? All the majority decision said was that I have a right to face the charges in front of a judge and argue my innocence. You think this is unprecedented? Most of those at GITMO were not picked up on any battlefield. Some were apprehended based on tribal rivalries. Don't you think they have a right to argue their innocence. Do you think that an individual be he King or President has a right to deprive anyone of their liberty based only on their word. Didn't the Magna Carta(1213)which much of our law and constitution is based on argue to the contrary?What are you scared of? What kind of society does that make us if we imprison without trial or charges? Don't we become what we say we are fighting? I don't think this is complex and those who think contrary are marching backwards, back beyond the 13th century.
You think this is unprecedented?
I'm unaware of any case in which the Court has held that foreign enemy prisoners, held during a time of war, were given the constitutional right to petition for habeas corpus. I'm sure you are aware that in this country, the language of the constitution trumps the language of the magna carta. I didn't engage Fried to argue issues of morality. As he is an attorney, and someone who usually appears knowledgeable, I wanted him to address how the conservative justices framed the legal issue. My first quote in my comment addressed to Fried is how scalia framed the issue.
As typical from Fried and Brab, they put forth well-reasoned arguments. In contrast, I frankly don't take seriously anything that you say, whether insults or not. Your arrogance makes me laugh and exposes your own insecurity.
Are you speaking of "war on terrorism?"My dear fellow where in my last post was I being arrogant and where did I name call . Just because you can't or won't respond to my questions and quite frankly to Frieds does not make my questions less reasoned. "I know you are but what am I" is not working. As you yourself admitted you posting here because of your boredom doesn't excuse your simplemindedness, and no amount mental calistenics you try to perform can make your assertions reasonable or progressive. Scalia used lies to make his argument,there is no proff that those released from GITMO returned to any battlefield or killed any US soldiers. Google it for yourself,instead of wasting peoples time with your talking points drivel disguised as some innocent inquiry.
The principles underlying the constitution are derived from many historical documents. It's subservient to none of them, including the magna carta. Nor is it subservient to any conflicting treaty. You can't be serious that you lament my "name-calling". Are you this terribly obtuse? Re-read your posts. You're slightly amusing but exceedingly tiresome. I followed your lead in resorting to derogatory comments. You're right, I shouldn't, but you should be less sensitive if you're gonna dish out the insults.
And one other thing, out of respect for mmfa. I didn't mean to say that I visit this site only out of boredome. The only time I can visit is when I have downtime at work. I wish that I had access last night to have more timely responded to Brabs and Fried.
Yeah, Obama is a Centrist and stuff...
CHANGE!