Stark apologizes for harsh remarks by AURaptor

Yeah, I heard about the apology...

depressing.

Not that this isn't a gray area. From my perspective Stark was speaking what he felt was the truth. Maybe it was hyperbole, but the reality is there seems to be a genuine lack of humanity coming from the other side of the aisle and the executive office, based upon their ability to demonize anybody who speaks for a cause they disaprove of, and their sad voting histories.

So when stark stood up and called them on it, I applauded. I'm tired of it being accepted that the people that work for us all have their hearts in the right place until PROVEN otherwise. The preponderance of evidence suggests otherwise, what the hell does it take before the Republicans can no longer hide behind a facade of integrity, and finally have to defend the impetus behind their decisions, not just their individual votes.

On the other hand we saw outrage when Schmidt called members of congress who wanted to end the occupation of Iraq, cowards on the floor, inflamatory language that did indeed seem to have no place there when I heard it. There was outrage at this, though I don't think there was ever a measure offered up to censure her, but I'm not sure about that.

Then there was the thing with Beck and the muslim Congressman, asking him why we should trust that he isn't an enemy....another disgustingly inflamatory remark.

I suppose I'm not perfect when distinguishing reasonable attacks from those that I consider out of line. The criticism about Bush seems reasonable to me. It reflects my sense of the things that seem to influence his decision making process, not amusement really, but indifference.

When it comes to Shmidt's case and that of Beck (and I realize he at least wasn't a congressman), I find the remarks bafflingly, unconciounably degrading. Perhaps it is because I don't see the evidence for their accusations, only the attempt at demonizining people for political gain.

I don't really believe they are even genuine. Turning a political decision about whether to leave Iraq into a matter of cowardice versus bravery when nobody casting the vote is in harms way? Sounds silly to me.

Implying that a man is an islamo-terrorist because he's a muslim? Well look at the Muslim population in the U.S., how absurd is that shit?

But on the flip side, people could say the same thing about Stark. His words may not resonate with them...they may ring false in their ears, while those comments made by Shmidt might have really spoken to their warped(sorry) sense of reality.
........................

I'm still trying to get my sense of this issue.

I wrote an email to Stark thanking him and asking him no to back down a couple days ago. A CNN poll that is hardly scientific, registered a 78 percent 'no' vote on whether or not he should apologize, and we know both the DUERS and FREEPERs were likely to have been trying to tip it.

I think the overall sense is that Stark's words were adressing something many people felt, even if over 50 percent(also non-scientific)of pepole polled thought that he went overboard with his remarks.

Yeah, STark's words probably weren't appropriate for a congressman, because that's the kind of discourse we can expect from both sides if it is allowed, not that similar diatribes by Republicans were ever censured by the GOP when they were in power,

but they were refreshing.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 23, 2007 3:56 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Meh, what a pansy.

If yer gonna say something like that in the first place, better be damned sure you MEAN it, and willing to stand behind it.

Or just sit back down and STFU.

If he's apologisin cause he didn't mean it, he's a moron, and if he's doing so as an appeasement gesture he's a coward - so it's not like one could have any respect for him at this point regardless.

*gives Stark the old school Bushido "thumbs-down"*
BOOOOoooo!

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 23, 2007 4:05 PM

SIGMANUNKI

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Not to stir the shit, but this graph is false and misleading.

This planet is a great example of Chaos Theory in action:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory
"""
...conditions exhibit dynamics that are sensitive to initial conditions...
"""

So, the relatively small changes we are producing can have profound effects on our climate/etc. To say different is to contradicts a ridiculous amount of what has already been proven.

The only argument that can be made is whether we are just widening the "sway" of this effect or if we are completely changing it i.e. the difference between a nudge and a shove NOT whether it is happening.

On a different note, I'd like to ask you to take this out of your signature. This request has nothing to do with my disagreement with the content, but the obscene amount of space that it takes up. Quite frankly, I find it quite against my idea of netiquette to have signatures the size of (or larger) than the actual post itself.

----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 23, 2007 4:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
On a different note, I'd like to ask you to take this out of your signature. This request has nothing to do with my disagreement with the content, but the obscene amount of space that it takes up. Quite frankly, I find it quite against my idea of netiquette to have signatures the size of (or larger) than the actual post itself.

Would you like me to help you out by cutting and pasting this after all the other Posters with big signatures?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 23, 2007 4:56 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

It definitely causes a screen width problem, unlike other signatures.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 23, 2007 4:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
It definitely causes a screen width problem, unlike other signatures.

Oh it's causing a problem alright. Don't think it's about screen width though.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 23, 2007 5:02 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

You're having a problem that NOT related to screen width ??? Is it personal ? Care to divulge ??

Oh, btw, do you have anything to say that's on-topic ?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 23, 2007 5:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Oh, btw, do you have anything to say that's on-topic ?

I agree with Frem's post.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 23, 2007 5:36 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:
Yeah, I heard about the apology...

depressing.

Not that this isn't a gray area. From my perspective Stark was speaking what he felt was the truth. Maybe it was hyperbole, but the reality is there seems to be a genuine lack of humanity coming from the other side of the aisle and the executive office, based upon their ability to demonize anybody who speaks for a cause they disaprove of, and their sad voting histories.

So when stark stood up and called them on it, I applauded. I'm tired of it being accepted that the people that work for us all have their hearts in the right place until PROVEN otherwise. The preponderance of evidence suggests otherwise, what the hell does it take before the Republicans can no longer hide behind a facade of integrity, and finally have to defend the impetus behind their decisions, not just their individual votes.

It's clear you hate Republicans, for what ever reason, I can't fathom, but what does that really have to do w/ what Stark said? What could you POSSIBLY find worthy of your applause when this jack ass states clearly that OUR President gets amusement in seeing OUR solider's heads get blown off ?

Stark is a dottering old fool who is feeling the pressure of being in the 'majority' and not getting anything of any worth done in Gov't. Not on the war, not with any political policy, and having to sit by as his party's kooky House leader wipes egg off her face over getting pummelled for the Turkish/Armenia resoution that clearly was a horrible idea.

He apologizes for good reason, because he knew he was wrong.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 23, 2007 7:55 PM

What? I don't hate republicans really. I tend to hate the majority of those with seats in congress, and the President and the Vice President and his unqualified cronies that he has filled most of his positions with, but not all republicans. There are plenty of good ones out there, even if I disagree with their philosophy of governing. I hate a bunch of democrats too for similar reasons.

As to Stark's comments, and him saying "for the President's amusement," I think it reflects the tone with which this jackass President has conducted himself. "no weapons of mass distruction under there..." "bring em on." "mission accomplished", "its bad in Iraq, heh heh"...

the guy is playing cowboy and flyboy and "war-time President," and fuck if I can see any sign of actually giving a shit about the real consequences of his actions.

Hell, he has yet to even apologize for this mess he got us in. He has yet to say he made a mistake.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 23, 2007 11:43 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:

the guy is playing cowboy and flyboy and "war-time President," and fuck if I can see any sign of actually giving a shit about the real consequences of his actions.

Hell, he has yet to even apologize for this mess he got us in. He has yet to say he made a mistake.

So, if he bit his lower lip, wiped a tear from his eye and cried crocadile tears ( as one former Pres is famous for doing ), you'd love Bush? Spare me the touchy, feely bullshit. He did what he felt was the right thing to do, based on what intel he had to go on. Why apologize ?? He MEANT to do this, because it was the right thing to do! You STILL don't fucking get it, do you ?

Why do I even bother ?

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 24, 2007 1:34 AM

Stark (raving mad) has a long, long history of insane diatribes and personal attacks against his fellow lawmakers. This poor, pathetic man is just jealous of the more famous Bush-hating drooling retard Carter.

His "apology" was ORDERED by the Dem. leadership, as the Republicans were preparing a Censure vote on him. He's just another hopelessly sad victim of Bush Hatred Syndrome.
I hope he can deal with President Guiliani a little more professionally.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 24, 2007 3:58 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
So, if he bit his lower lip, wiped a tear from his eye and cried crocadile tears ( as one former Pres is famous for doing ), you'd love Bush? Spare me the touchy, feely bullshit. He did what he felt was the right thing to do, based on what intel he had to go on. Why apologize ?? He MEANT to do this, because it was the right thing to do!

Auraptor- Do you appreciate the irony of your post? I mean, you DID phrase this to apply equally well to Stark on purpose, right?

Quote:
So, if he bit his lower lip, wiped a tear from his eye and cried crocadile tears ( as one former Rep is famous for doing ), you'd love Stark? Spare me the touchy, feely bullshit. He did what he felt was the right thing to do, based on what intel he had to go on. Why apologize ?? He MEANT to do this, because it was the right thing to do!

Or do you really have a chasm in your brain?

AFA preparing a censure vote: We're spending our way into third-world currency status, we have a disaster in the Middle East, the world is frying, our middle class is disappearing, and the Repugs want a censure vote? Give 'em fiddles so they can fiddle while the world burns, and the hell with them.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 24, 2007 4:07 AM

SigM...You forget to warn about the sky falling. If we're really at the abyss as you and others feel, out in the black so to speak, then politeness & civility are more important than ever during these times. This guy Stark has called Cabinet appointees "whores" and called others much worse. There is no place for that nonsense if we indeed are in desperate times.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 24, 2007 4:36 AM

So he got bad intel, but he meant to do this because it was the right thing to do?

He made no mistakes? Inspite of the intel being bad, as you put it, or of him accepting bad intel as has been well established in the face of contradicting intel, you see no reason why he should take responsibility for making a bad call, or you see no reason for capitulating that this was a bad call?

Edited to respond to Jongstraw,

I have no doubt his apology was ordered by the spneless dem leadership, but the censure vote was killed just before he gave his apology.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 24, 2007 5:25 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"then politeness & civility are more important than ever during these times"

OMG - Jongstraw, you're a funny person.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 24, 2007 5:43 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

HAHAHAHAHA!

Jongsstraw and Auraptor: unintentionally funny!

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 24, 2007 5:58 AM

I guess that's what I get, or that's what I deserve by trying to post here and respond to you two quims.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 24, 2007 6:57 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I guess that's what I get, or that's what I deserve by trying to post here and respond to you two quims.

It's just that a call for politeness from you, of all people, seems rather... heh heh heh. Sorry, but I'm still chuckling.

But seriously, folks... Another thing I noticed about right-wingers is lack of ... Self-reflection? Perspective?

Let me give you some examples: When jihadists kill 10,000 people a year, that's terrible. But when WE kill 10,000 people a year, that's different. When Stark says intemperate things, he should apologize. But when Bush says intemperate things, that's different. When one of our Representatives is impolite, that's serious. But when the very same poster who objects to impoliteness is himself usually impolite, that's different. When a tyrannical regime tortures people, that's awful. But when we do it, that's different.

I'm not sure it's hypocracy as much as it is a complete bifurcation of thought process. There's everybody else, and then there's us. Because we're just and righteous and freedom-loving and we believe in the cause, whatever we do should be judged by a different criteria. And somehow Brain Part A never talks to Brain Part B.

What do you right-wingers think? Do I have a point? Does anyone else notice the same thing?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 24, 2007 7:20 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Let me give you some examples: When jihadists kill 10,000 people a year, that's terrible. But when WE kill 10,000 people a year, that's different.

It is different. Its different because the Jihadists are trying to kill people...we are just trying to kill Jihadists. I have often said it would be far more equitable for everyone if the Jihadists would simply leave the homes, mosques, schools, etc and assemble in a large field outside of the towns they are in...but since they wont be reasonable...

Quote:

When Stark says intemperate things, he should apologize. But when Bush says intemperate things, that's different.

Hmm...I can't seem to remember the last time Bush called one of his cabnet members a whore or said the Democrats were interfering with the supply and funding of our troops so that more troops will die for their amusement.

Quote:

I'm not sure it's hypocracy as much as it is a complete bifurcation of thought process...

What do you right-wingers think? Do I have a point? Does anyone else notice the same thing?

You have an excellent point. Unfortunately its generally, but not always, pointed the wrong direction.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 24, 2007 7:26 AM

These types of comparisons you make are called moral equivalences, and usually Liberals, still in their perpetual hatchling brain-developing stages, cannot draw moral and just conclusions. They equate everything the same no matter who does what.....
Fundamental Christianity they say is JUST AS DANGEROUS as Fundamental Islam....now I don't believe for one fucking minute that ANY of these half-witted liberal anti-war twits actually believe their own horseshit they spew, but it does make for great political theater.
And as far as Rue's & your posts that mock me and accuse me of insulting people...well that too is just pure bullshit, and you both know it. You can't handle the message, so you choose to either ignore and/or denigrate the messenger. I believe I have been quite civil and polite to all Firefly posters for a long time now.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 24, 2007 7:29 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Well, Republicans in general spew all kinds of hate-mongering, anything from calling people un-American and treasonous to picking on a 12-year-old brain-damaged kid. So: worth an apology, or is that different?

AFA killing people "accidentally": What do we owe them? An "oops, sorry"? So, what does it look like to the person on the wrong side of a gun? Does it look different?
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 24, 2007 7:41 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Jong

"Quite some time now" - 2 weeks ? And sadly, your reputation precedes you. Plus, you don't do it any good with thoughtful, polite posts like this: "ANY of these half-witted liberal anti-war twits". Well, it looks like you'll have to start your clock over again.
***************************************************************
But I'm curious - why NOW ??? Why is politeness suddenly and uncharacteristically so primary to you ??

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 24, 2007 7:47 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Let's just make sure we're not pots and kettles, eh?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 24, 2007 7:58 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I'm not calling for politeness. I'm just pointing and laughing.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 24, 2007 8:08 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Well, and there IS that word "quim". Funny thing- I used it a game of Scrabble and no one knew what it was but were too afraid to challenge me. Made a lot of points on it, too. But afterwards, I embarassingly had to explain what it meant. And when they looked it up in the "big" dictionary, it wasn't there. So I had to go on-line for prrof... which wasn't there either. Six years later, the internet finally caught up with the word. I think Firefly actually helped resurrect it.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 24, 2007 8:18 AM

in response to Sygm's lack of reflection of many Republicans,

I read that Bush is offering to bomb the kurds...because again, when we do it, it's in the best interest of freedom, but when Saddam gasses them, well he's the Butcher of Bagdhad.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 24, 2007 8:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I'm not calling for politeness. I'm just pointing and laughing.

The difference between me and you Rue is that you use harshness and vulgarity directly at FF Fans ...I use those things against generic groups. I don't know who fits into what group or not here all the time, but I don't typically insult any individual fans here like you relish doing.
You are a nasty, nasty miserable person & I truly pity you.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 24, 2007 8:30 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
The difference between me and you Rue is that you use harshness and vulgarity directly at FF Fans ...I use those things against generic groups

But HEY you called me a QUIM! So pot, meet kettle!

And besides, I'm not sure that harshness and vulgarity against "generic groups" isn't worse than against individuals. An individual when confronted face to face has a chance to defend/ refute the comment, and it usually based on specifically what the individual has done or said.

Insulting generic groups merely means that you have deep-seated prejudices. Those "groups" not only have no way of defending themselves, it is evidence that your opinions are resistant to real-world experience (prejudice= pre-judge) In other words, you already "know" something about a whole bunch of people before you've even interacted with them.

I also find that fairly consistent with right-wingers. They tend to use labels and straw man arguments, not because they consciously pull that trick out of the grab-bag of rhetorical tricks but because they have such deep-seated prejudices against whole swaths of people, like "75% of antiwar people are coffee-house liberals" or "the corrupt hollywood liberal elite" or "anyone who doesn't back the war is un-American" or "rag-heads are all jihadists" or "blacks are lazy and stupid".

I generally don't talk about right-wingers as a group, this is new to me, but I'm curiouis how they find the shoe being on the other foot.

---------------------------------
All Bush supporters are morons.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 24, 2007 8:36 AM

Come on Hero,

Bush doesn't need to say anything,

he's got his attack dogs all over the place. How many times have we been told that democrats are on the side of the terrorists, or that we are providing aid and comfort to the enemy, or as Mclellan suggested, people like Helen Thomas are "opposed to the broader war on terrorism,"

It really isn't flattering of yourself to continue to play so intentionally daft all the time.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 24, 2007 8:45 AM

Well I got news for you Jongstraw,

everything is personal. You want to make those comments abstract about some nonspecific group so that you can fling your insults at abandon with no responsibility,

but that's bullshit.

When somebody says as an example, that "faggots shouldn't be allowed to get married, and shouldn't throw their homosexuality in my face by holding hands, " that is personal. When you vote for a candidate that is going to hold to those twisted values you just espoused, that is personal. You can't then say it isn't.

YOu can't say you aren't talking about specific people. You are...you're just doing something worse, generalizing on top of it, making a blanket statement and lumping a whole group into it.

But you can't say it's nothing personal. It has real impact on real lives. Its always easier to insult somebody when they aren't there to defend themselves, or when you can pretend that it wasn't specifically directed at them, or that your vote is in no way an indictment of them, just their lifestyle. Kind of being a pussy, I'd say

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 24, 2007 8:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:
in response to Sygm's lack of reflection of many Republicans,
I read that Bush is offering to bomb the kurds...because again, when we do it, it's in the best interest of freedom, but when Saddam gasses them, well he's the Butcher of Bagdhad.

Did Saddam only gas members of the PKK or all Kurds in general?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 24, 2007 8:46 AM

FREDGIBLET

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I'm not calling for politeness. I'm just pointing and laughing.

The difference between me and you Rue is that you use harshness and vulgarity directly at FF Fans ...I use those things against generic groups. I don't know who fits into what group or not here all the time, but I don't typically insult any individual fans here like you relish doing.

How exactly is that better?

Quote:
You are a nasty, nasty miserable person & I truly pity you.

Pot meet kettle.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 24, 2007 8:47 AM

FREDGIBLET

Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:

Well I got news for you Jongstraw,

everything is personal. You want to make those comments abstract about some nonspecific group so that you can fling your insults at abandon with no responsibility,

but that's bullshit.

When somebody says as an example, that "faggots shouldn't be allowed to get married, and shouldn't throw their homosexuality in my face by holding hands, " that is personal. When you vote for a candidate that is going to hold to those twisted values you just espoused, that is personal. You can't then say it isn't.

YOu can't say you aren't talking about specific people. You are...you're just doing something worse, generalizing on top of it, making a blanket statement and lumping a whole group into it.

But you can't say it's nothing personal. It has real impact on real lives. Its always easier to insult somebody when they aren't there to defend themselves, or when you can pretend that it wasn't specifically directed at them, or that your vote is in no way an indictment of them, just their lifestyle.

Hear, hear.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 24, 2007 8:49 AM

Good point Bigdamnnobody.... we take care to label before we kill. There is a difference...weee

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 24, 2007 8:51 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Did Saddam only gas members of the PKK or all Kurds in general?

Because that's different!

HAHAHAHA!!!!

You guys are a gas!

Seriously!

----------------

Insulting generic groups merely means that you have deep-seated prejudices. Those "groups" not only have no way of defending themselves, it is evidence that your opinions are resistant to real-world experience (prejudice= pre-judge) In other words, you already "know" something about a whole bunch of people before you've even interacted with them.

I also find that fairly consistent with right-wingers. They tend to use labels and straw man arguments, not because they consciously pull that trick out of the grab-bag of rhetorical tricks but because they have such deep-seated prejudices against whole swaths of people, like "75% of antiwar people are coffee-house liberals" or "the corrupt hollywood liberal elite" or "anyone who doesn't back the war is un-American" or "rag-heads are all jihadists" or "blacks are lazy and stupid".

I generally don't talk about right-wingers as a group, this is new to me, but I'm curiouis how they find the shoe being on the other foot.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 24, 2007 8:53 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:
Good point Bigdamnnobody.... we take care to label before we kill. There is a difference...weee

How else can we tell those who will blow up a bridge from those just trying to live their lives.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 24, 2007 8:53 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Well, Republicans in general spew all kinds of hate-mongering, anything from calling people un-American and treasonous to picking on a 12-year-old brain-damaged kid. So: worth an apology, or is that different?

No. I note for the record that this thread is about one man in particular, your generalization is not relevant. People in general speed, but that fact is not relevent in YOUR traffic trial. Same argument here.

People in general are not elected and making those statements on the House floor. Such statements are unacceptable in those circumstances. But some idiot shouting baby killer at an abortion doctor is just like some idiot shouting baby killer at a soldier...their just idiots speaking their mind (or lack there of).

Quote:

AFA killing people "accidentally": What do we owe them? An "oops, sorry"? So, what does it look like to the person on the wrong side of a gun? Does it look different?

Truth is we ARE sorry. Truth is collateral damage is not intentional. Truth is we've spent billions in weapons development, training, and doctrine to minimize that damage. Truth is we can kill the terrorists just as dead by carpet bombing a city then if we precision strike a house, but we choose not to.

The terrorists are not sorry when they kill innocents. Fact is killing innocents is by design, not by coincidence. If you don't see the difference, then your blind to night and day.

Innocents die in war. The good guys try to avoid it if they can and lament it when they can't. That you feel bad is commendable, that you can't differentiate war making from terrorism is...naive.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 24, 2007 8:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
Did Saddam only gas members of the PKK or all Kurds in general?
Because that's different!

HAHAHAHA!!!!

You guys are a gas!

Seriously!

Please explain Signy how you feel this is not different.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 24, 2007 8:58 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:
Well I got news for you Jongstraw,
everything is personal.

That's obviously your problem.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 24, 2007 9:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:

Come on Hero,

Bush doesn't need to say anything,

he's got his attack dogs all over the place.

It could be that he has too much respect for the office to "say anything". I note for the record that the White House denied comment on the whole issue.

As for attack dogs...its hard to tell who's talking for the President and who's just talking. I'd suggest that if their name does not include "White House" at some point in their title, then they are probably not speaking for the President.

I also note that putting words in someone's mouth is not speaking for that person. Otherwise there would be a LOT of liberals out there, including yourself, speaking on the President's behalf.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 24, 2007 9:00 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
No. I note for the record that this thread is about one man in particular, your generalization is not relevant. People in general speed, but that fact is not relevent in YOUR traffic trial. Same argument here.

Because that's different!

Well, I note for the record that a lot of those nasty remarks about un-Americans and about the brain-damaged kid came from... guess what.. Republican Congressmen.

Quote:
The terrorists are not sorry when they kill innocents. Fact is killing innocents is by design, not by coincidence. If you don't see the difference, then your blind to night and day.

From the viewpoint of the dead person's family, do they really care if we cry crocodile tears and apologize?

Hero, you are SUCH a tool! And so funny!

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 24, 2007 9:05 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"People in general are not elected and making those statements on the House floor. Such statements are unacceptable in those circumstances. But some idiot shouting baby killer at an abortion doctor is just like some idiot shouting baby killer at a soldier...their just idiots speaking their mind (or lack there of)."

So the difference is whether or not we know the name of the person who's doing the name-calling and the name of the person who's being called names ? Wow. Insightful.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 24, 2007 9:10 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Hmmm... Let's just see how many women and children we kill if we bomb the PKK and then we can talk about how different that is.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 24, 2007 9:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
From the viewpoint of the dead person's family, do they really care if we cry crocodile tears and apologize?

Probably not right away. I would suggest we ask some French citizens whose family members died during US attacks on Germans in their country during WW2. Their perspective might help.

And how do you know they are crocodile tears? I think thats a pretty broad presumption. Soldiers, especially American soldiers, have always been lamenting the horrors of war.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 24, 2007 9:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
So the difference is whether or not we know the name of the person who's doing the name-calling and the name of the person who's being called names ? Wow. Insightful.

Wow, you guys are really into the broad generalizations today. I didn't say it was about knowing the persons name. Celebrities make bonehead statements all the time. I simply choose to boycott their products.

I'm placing elected officials in a different catagory altogether...and I note for the record that a person is far more likely to know the celebrity's name then their local Congressman, yet I'd still hold the Congressman to a higher standard.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 24, 2007 9:16 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

AFA preparing a censure vote: We're spending our way into third-world currency status, we have a disaster in the Middle East, the world is frying, our middle class is disappearing, and the Repugs want a censure vote? Give 'em fiddles so they can fiddle while the world burns, and the hell with them.

---------------------------------
.

Your hyperbole aside, the defecit is coming down, faster than anyone expected, the disater in the Mid East is one we're trying to FIX, the world is FAR from 'frying', the middle class isn't going anywhere, and yes, the GOP want to censure the ridiculous and uncalled for remarks by Stark.

So, all you have left is ...well, nothing!

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 24, 2007 9:16 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
especially American soldiers

Here you go again, talking about whole swaths of people without any knowledge whatsoever. Typical.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 24, 2007 9:20 AM