RIH Osama Bin Laden

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

[silverscreenselect]

All I see is the word "Image." It looks like you need permissions to view that image. --Bob

It's the official bin Laden death photo.

[Flybrick]

Still classy...


http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-shepp ... -death-ove

I realize this was on MSNBC, so nobody probably saw it, but it's "interesting" to me to note the lack of outrage when the left says something stupid and over the top.

But let Rush/Beck, et al, and it's Katie bar the door...*





* with apologies to anyone named Katie

[Jeemie]

Still classy...


http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-shepp ... -death-ove

I realize this was on MSNBC, so nobody probably saw it, but it's "interesting" to me to note the lack of outrage when the left says something stupid and over the top.

But let Rush/Beck, et al, and it's Katie bar the door...*





* with apologies to anyone named Katie

OK- now THIS is a funny post on your part.

While I agree the reporter was a bit over the top, did you happen to see what quote of Tancredo's sort of SPARKED that question to be asked?

LOLOLOL!!!!!

[Flybrick]

I did. Tancredo was OTT in his remarks as far as Obama's "threat" to our country, but such exageration is pretty standard political tripe.

But he did NOT call for violence. And to you it was only a "bit?"

Sure do remember a lot of airtime and electrons expended over the right's "violent" rhetoric.

Here, not so much...

[silverscreenselect]

I did. Tancredo was OTT in his remarks as far as Obama's "threat" to our country, but such exageration is pretty standard political tripe.

But he did NOT call for violence. And to you it was only a "bit?"

Sure do remember a lot of airtime and electrons expended over the right's "violent" rhetoric.

Here, not so much...

I actually think the press doesn't do enough of that. When a politician of any stripe makes an outrageous comment like Tancredo did, the press should press him (or her) for explanations of just what he meant and whether his comments were the best way to express those sentiments. It wouldn't take too many instances of politicians hanging themselves out to dry before some of them decided to tone down the rhetoric.

And even on your own terms, if Tancredo didn't call for violence, neither did the reporter. He just asked Tancredo to explain exactly what he meant by his earlier statement.

[Flybrick]

Hypocrisy still intact; ok, just checking...

[Jeemie]

I did. Tancredo was OTT in his remarks as far as Obama's "threat" to our country, but such exageration is pretty standard political tripe.

But he did NOT call for violence. And to you it was only a "bit?"

Sure do remember a lot of airtime and electrons expended over the right's "violent" rhetoric.

Here, not so much...

There was no "call for violence" from the reporter...just an over-the-top question in response to Tancredo's over-the-top rhetoric.

And since when did saying an elected official was more dangerous than a world-wide terrorist network become "standard political tripe"?

I was with you on your first post about the guy who made disparaging remarks towards George W. Bush.

But here the reporter was justified in what he did to Tancredo because of Tancredo's nutty rhetoric. He was doing what we all have said we wish reporters to do...holding a politician accountable who had gone over the top.

And let's not forget Tancredo has made a habit of going over the edge. Remember, this is one who at times has called for the nuking of Mecca. yes- he clarified and said it would be in response to a nuke attack on the US, and that he wasn't suggesting policy, but he made this remark when pretty much validating the even nuttier claims that were flying around in the years after 9/11 that Al Qaeda was in possession of multiple stolen Russian suitcase nuclear bombs (some of the nuttier claims said they had gotten hold of a warhead or two!) and had smuggled them into the US to prepare for an "American Hiroshima".

So in this case, Tancredo deserved it, IMHO.

Make off-the-wall, irresponsible claims...be prepared to back them up, or pay the price.

Isn't this EXACTLY how we want irresponsible speech to be controlled? By holding those that practice it accountable?

By excusing what Tancredo said as "standard political tripe", are you not doing exactly what you accused SSS of doing...which is pointing out supposed Dem "violations" while excusing those in your own party?

[silverscreenselect]

Hypocrisy still intact; ok, just checking...

No hypocrisy here. Here's what Tancredo said:

Mr. Obama is a more serious threat to America than al Qaeda. We you know that Osama bin Laden and followers want to kill us but at least they are an outside force against whom we can offer our best defense. But when a dedicated enemy of the Constitution is working from the inside, we face a far more dangerous threat.

Any defense attorney worth his salt would have a field day with an on-the-record quote like this. Tancredo should be called into account to explain these comments. Instead, whenever he's challenged, the Flybricks and Flocks and Rush Limbaughs of the world say well OF COURSE he meant by non-violent means and that no one would take those words otherwise. Of course, people do take those words otherwise, like the guy who heard Glenn Beck's tirade about the Tides Foundation and tried to shoot up their headquarters.

The press doesn't do nearly enough of this type of probing questioning. To be fair, they don't question Democrats about stupid statements any more than they do Republicans. But it doesn't mean they shouldn't.

What I find hard to understand is how anyone can equate asking Tancredo about his statements with making the same type of statements yourself. Bashir never suggested or said anything that in any way could be interpreted or costrued that Tancredo was an enemy of the US, or that he should be shot, or anything at all remotely similar to that.

I guess by your logic, if a reporter inquires about a politician's shady financial dealings and suggests that the politician took a bribe, that means that the reporter himself is guilty of taking bribes.

[Bob Juch]

Hypocrisy still intact; ok, just checking...

No hypocrisy here. Here's what Tancredo said:

Mr. Obama is a more serious threat to America than al Qaeda. We you know that Osama bin Laden and followers want to kill us but at least they are an outside force against whom we can offer our best defense. But when a dedicated enemy of the Constitution is working from the inside, we face a far more dangerous threat.

Any defense attorney worth his salt would have a field day with an on-the-record quote like this. Tancredo should be called into account to explain these comments. Instead, whenever he's challenged, the Flybricks and Flocks and Rush Limbaughs of the world say well OF COURSE he meant by non-violent means and that no one would take those words otherwise. Of course, people do take those words otherwise, like the guy who heard Glenn Beck's tirade about the Tides Foundation and tried to shoot up their headquarters.

The press doesn't do nearly enough of this type of probing questioning. To be fair, they don't question Democrats about stupid statements any more than they do Republicans. But it doesn't mean they shouldn't.

What I find hard to understand is how anyone can equate asking Tancredo about his statements with making the same type of statements yourself. Bashir never suggested or said anything that in any way could be interpreted or construed that Tancredo was an enemy of the US, or that he should be shot, or anything at all remotely similar to that.

I guess by your logic, if a reporter inquires about a politician's shady financial dealings and suggests that the politician took a bribe, that means that the reporter himself is guilty of taking bribes.

Tancredo should be glad most of the Alien and Sedition Acts have been nullified.