thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Oct 23, 2004 17:13:58 GMT -5
"Throughout the debate, John Kerry, for his part, looks and sounds a bit like a haunted tree. But at least he's not a lying, sEditeding, drink-driving, selfish, reckless, ignorant, dangerous, backward, drooling, twitching, blinking, mouse-faced little cheat. And besides, in a fight between a tree and a bush, I know who I'd favour. On November 2, the entire civilised world will be praying, praying Bush loses. And Sod's law dictates he'll probably win, thereby disproving the existence of God once and for all. The world will endure four more years of idiocy, arrogance and unwarranted bloodshed, with no benevolent deity to watch over and save us. John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr - where are you now that we need you?"
I am speechless. Utterly speachless. This is a left wing, but believe me you, a mainstream British paper. It has one of the bigger circulation's in the world. There are no words.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Oct 23, 2004 18:02:17 GMT -5
I'd like to read this entire commentary, so if you can post a link, it would be appreciated.
My assessment of this piece is that it is overstated, although it is an opinion that should be protected in the spirit of free press up to the last sentence in which the author tacitly endorses assassination.
However, some of his characterizations are well-founded. For example, Bush does have a drunk driving citation. On the other points, they are clearly a matter of opinion. Recklessness, for example, is something that Kerry accuses Bush of being for, among other reasons, he sent the troops into Iraq without a plan to win the peace. On the lying point, it depends on what your definition of lie is. Bush clearly said some things that were factually inaccurate, up to and including claims that Iraq was an imminent threat to the United States' interests. Whether Bush knew better at the time is an important question and one, in my view, that remains unresolved today. As far as sEditeding, I am not sure what that one means, but you might be able to find it in Bush's demeanor during the first debate.
As far as his comment about the "civilized world" praying that he loses, in general, that is true and there is polling data to substantiate the claim. However, the author's view is overstated because the entire civilized world is not in unanimous agreement.
As far as disproving the existence of God, this is an overstated claim, although it should be noted that many on the right wish to portray Kerry as godless, so what gives?
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Oct 23, 2004 18:17:36 GMT -5
You have managed to miss the elephant in the room Jersey. I am agnostic, I couldn't care less that he denies the existence of god or the other relatively small stuff. You are so partisan that you immediately jumped to defend portions of the op ed that are pretty much irrelevant- except in that they set up the assination plea so I left them in. I am very disappointed Jersey. Very. If you quoted a signifigant right wing publication calling for Kerry's assasination, I would NOT split hairs and say "yeah, that part is bad BUT....." This is the time to simply abhor the choice that led to the publication of a bigoted call to violence in a mainstream British paper. You really should have showed a modicum of restraint and reasonableness and decided this was not the time to defend even parts of a piece that call the murder of an indivisual because of political differences. www.guardian.co.uk/theguide/columnists/story/0,,1333748,00.html
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Oct 23, 2004 18:33:47 GMT -5
Interesting to hear about a call for restraint from you who, among other things, wants to puke when a former President speaks and belittles the handicapped based on their being handicapped.
The position that you support, in this case, is not one of restraint but of a knee jerk reaction. I wrote quite clearly that the last sentence should not be protected under free speech. In a sense, therefore, I decry the choice that was made to publish the commentary because it does not adhere to the proper standards of free speech. However, everything up to that point is worthy of press to the degree that it does not violate free speech.
However, I find it unreasonable to throw out an entire argument because one part of it is unreasonable, if not offensive. For example, Bush often compared Saddam Hussein to Hitler. This obviously cheapened the Holocaust while it overstated the degree to which Hussein was a menace to his own people, although he was so to a lesser degree. Does that mean you throw everything else out? I find this sort of behavior, with which you seem to agree on an ad hoc basis (i.e. when the liberals do it, cry shame, and when the Republicans do it, cry wolf) to be irresponsible, although it does give one pause when you listen to what is being discussed.
It seems in your view that restraint truly means lack thereof, as you seem to be taking a posture toward the author that is similar to that which he takes toward our President, although it is to a considerably lesser degree. However, I always believe that it is proper to look at what was said. Most everything in the article up to the last sentence is worthy of discussion, while the last sentence is truly not something that should be published.
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Oct 23, 2004 18:36:56 GMT -5
It has nothing to do with the other "arguments" if by that you mean the littnany of vitriolic name calling- only the call for murder. If you were a bit more balanced about my posts, maybe you would have focused on the signifigant part, or I guess should spoonfeed it to you more carefully. Because afterall, its not everyday you see a large paper publish a call to assasinate the president- but I guess the uniqueness of that little nugget escaped you.
|
|
nychoya3
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,674
|
Post by nychoya3 on Oct 23, 2004 18:47:54 GMT -5
It's a moronic piece of writing. There are lots of morons in the world. Some like the President and others don't. I wouldn't read read much more into than that.
The Guardian shouldn't print this. But, honestly, I really don't care what they choose to print.
|
|
nychoya3
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,674
|
Post by nychoya3 on Oct 23, 2004 18:52:05 GMT -5
By the way, thebin, did you get this from Anderw Sullivan's site? And, if so, are you taking the plunge and supporting Kerry like him?
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Oct 23, 2004 18:55:33 GMT -5
nyc- I care that a major British paper would publish this- if you don't, even though you condemn it, that is perfectly fine, but then why even respond to the thread? I certainly think this is "bitch-worthy" for a B&G message board, is it not? I guess I just never understood the purpose of posting to say "Yeah but, I don't care." The nature of posting itself seems to say otherwise. Oh well....
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Oct 23, 2004 18:58:49 GMT -5
I saw it on drudge.... I share some of Sullivan's reservations with the Bush adminstration, and ALL of his reservations with Kerry. As far as I know, he is still not committed to Kerry- I think he might go libertarian or something. I will be voting for Bush with some reservations. Honestly the most visceral reason I can give you for wanting to see BUsh win- to ruin the month of people like those at the Guardian. I hate the Bush-hater FAR MORE than I like Bush. That is afterall, how Clinton got re-elected in 96.
|
|
Z
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 409
|
Post by Z on Oct 23, 2004 18:59:26 GMT -5
thebin, i'm also appalled by the decision to print this. its really mind numbing to think that an "editor" read this and gave it the green light.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Oct 23, 2004 19:10:21 GMT -5
It has nothing to do with the other "arguments" if by that you mean the littnany of vitriolic name calling- only the call for murder. If you were a bit more balanced about my posts, maybe you would have focused on the signifigant part, or I guess should spoonfeed it to you more carefully. Because afterall, its not everyday you see a large paper publish a call to assasinate the president- but I guess the uniqueness of that little nugget escaped you. I was balanced about your post and have been so in the past because some of your comments have indeed shown a lack of restraint and maturity, especially with respect to the disabled. I said that the last sentence should not have been printed, which is the sentence you choose to pick out as offensive, which it is. Whether that means canning the rest, I do not know, but that is what is in ecord in the article. Incidentally, your point about spoonfeeding is a bit unfortunate. To suggest that others are stupid because they disagree with you politically is analagous to some of the same things in which the Guardian's author engages, such as calling those who support Bush uncivilized.
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Oct 23, 2004 19:17:32 GMT -5
tell me how I disparaged the disabled again please....
|
|
nychoya3
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,674
|
Post by nychoya3 on Oct 23, 2004 19:19:30 GMT -5
Sullivan has pretty well said he's voting for Kerry. Whatever. As for hating the bush haters as a reason to vote for bush...that's pretty weak. It's the same sort of thinking that thinks the question of who Bin Laden would vote for has any bearing on who we should vote for. I'm not going to preach to you except to say you shouldn't let your positions be defined by the likes of the Guardian's writers. It's that general sort of thinking that lowers debate in this country (and many others) into a festival of mudslinging and hatred. It's intellectually lazy, and if that's really the best reason you have to vote for Bush, you should just write in John Thompson III and move on.
I'm voting for Kerry and the pleasure I will get from watching the current organization of the GOP go up in flames will be purely incidental to my vote. But it will certainly be a perk.
The opportunity cost of posting was very low. Just like the opportunity cost of voting. Guess I've got nothing better to do. Or at least I didn't until now. I'm going drinking folks.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Oct 23, 2004 19:21:29 GMT -5
You have managed to miss the elephant in the room Jersey. I am agnostic, I couldn't care less that he denies the existence of god or the other relatively small stuff. You are so partisan that you immediately jumped to defend portions of the op ed that are pretty much irrelevant- except in that they set up the assination plea so I left them in. I am very disappointed Jersey. Very. If you quoted a signifigant right wing publication calling for Kerry's assasination, I would NOT split hairs and say "yeah, that part is bad BUT....." This is the time to simply abhor the choice that led to the publication of a bigoted call to violence in a mainstream British paper. You really should have showed a modicum of restraint and reasonableness and decided this was not the time to defend even parts of a piece that call the murder of an indivisual because of political differences. www.guardian.co.uk/theguide/columnists/story/0,,1333748,00.html I guess that you and I read the piece differently. In case you didn't read, I saw the elephant and pointed it out early in my first post on the subject and pointed out that the assassination plea should not have been printed. The rest can be printed due to the bounds of free speech, as much as you or I may disagree with what's printed or abhor the tone of the writing. Again, I see things differently, and that may disappoint you, but it is fact that not everyone agrees on these matters. Some of the characterizations of Bush may indeed be fitting, which should not be overshadowed by the lack of responsibility shown in the last sentence of the commentary, although, perhaps, it is. Just because he calls for assassination does not mean that everything else in there is wrong, which you seemed to suggest in some of your posts, although you seem to be taking a posture that suggest their banality rather than their being wrong. Also, you don't know me, so feel free to not accuse me of being a partisan. I come down on one side more often than not, but I do agree with some conservative positions, many of which have been abandoned by the current stewards of the party.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Oct 23, 2004 19:23:41 GMT -5
tell me how I disparaged the disabled again please.... You have misused the word retarded repeatedly on site, then defended your use of such terminology even after those with disabled relatives or friends asked you to terminate your irresponsible diction. In a more recent post, you belittle an amputee seemingly on the basis of his lack of physical stature that results from him being in a wheelchair. I should also point out that you called Kerry a "pompous [expletive omitted]." If that isn't similar to what this Guardian author is doing (save the assassination plea), I do not know what is.
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Oct 23, 2004 19:32:06 GMT -5
nychoya- you misunderstand. I said hating the Bush haters (and by these I mean the real radicals calling for assasination and comparing to Hitler etc.) was the most VISCERAL reason. The best reason I will vote for Bush is because Kerry is in every way unworthy of the job- particularly now. Kerry's career in the Senate is the reason I will vote for Bush. And its a good reason if you have paid attention to Kerry and feel as I do. Bush gets many of the small questions wrong, but most of the big questions right. Kerry is wrong on the big issues from where I stand. (explanation- the definition for me of big or small an issue is has everything to do with how much influence the president has with regard to that issue.)
Jersey- I am done with you. Your vivid imagination and subsequent slander with regards to this phantom amputee insult and your overreaction to the colloquial use of some language is it for me. Its not worth the time. Especailly with the Sox on.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Oct 23, 2004 19:39:49 GMT -5
nychoya- you misunderstand. I said hating the Bush haters (and by these I mean the real radicals calling for assasination and comparing to Hitler etc.) was the most VISCERAL reason. The best reason I will vote for Bush is because Kerry is in every way unworthy of the job- particularly now. Kerry's career in the Senate is the reas I vote for Bush. And its a good reason if you have paid attention to Kerry and feel as I do. Bush gets many of the small questions wrong, but most of the big questions right. Kerry is wrong on the big issues from where I stand. Jersey- I am done with you. Your vivid imagination and subsequent slander with regards to this phantom amputee insult and your overreaction to the colloquial use of some language is it for me. Its not worth the time. Especailly with the Sox on. I do not expect you to answer to some of these indefensible comments on your part. You never have, as you've never apologized on site for them, and, even if you did at this point, I'd doubt your sincerity just as I doubt the sincerity of you above post considering you made a similar one within months of today. Unfortunately, the certainty you display in these comments is of the most dangerous variety, which exists when you are both certain and wrong. I should note on the subject of partisanship that I have taken today a very strict interpretation of our Constitution by defending the free press up until the last sentence in the commentary. If such an interpretation isn't the Republican ideal, I am not sure what is.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Oct 23, 2004 19:58:33 GMT -5
Jersey- I am done with you. Your vivid imagination and subsequent slander with regards to this phantom amputee insult and your overreaction to the colloquial use of some language is it for me. Its not worth the time. Especailly with the Sox on. Nice ex post facto job of editing. You drew almost a direct comparison between Al Gore, a man of dominant physical stature, and Cleland, who you discussed rather facetiously as someone who "rolled up"to the ranch, and you drew emphasis toward his status as a triple amputee, which should have absolutely nothing to do with the effect of his stunt, although it seemingly does for you. Again, you miss an opportunity. Now, you defend your use of "retarded" as colloquial, when you defended it at the time as the "correct" use of the term. Nevermind that, but you defend its usage on the basis that everyone else says it. Color me disappointed. Another missed opportunity. I should note that you've also posted messages along the lines of "insert [sexual reference omitted] sign here." Some of this was posted in response to comments I've made on site. In each case, to my knowledge, you didn't apologize, but asked for a mulligan or a "free pass" because you were drunk at the time, which again suggests your willingness, if not, habit to cast off responsibility for your errors. Again, you suggest the banality of your actions on the grounds that everyone else makes mistakes when they're drunk. What you forget is that the condition of inebriation does not obfuscate the fact that errors were committed and many of them immoral. You also continue to exhibit a misuse of diction. Slander is verbal, but libel is in writing. This ecord suggests an interest in accusing me of something for the sake of doing so rather than on the basis of any merit. I would suggest that you are also lowering the bar considerably in your characterization of my comments, which you do not deny making, although you disagree with my interpretation of them. It should be noted that many agreed with me on the issue of your misuse of "retarded." To suggest that I am in ecord, moreover, for calling you out on this also suggests a level of irresponsibility and shamefulness.
|
|
Joe Hoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
You're watching Sports Night on CSC, so stick around.
Posts: 1,236
|
Post by Joe Hoya on Oct 23, 2004 21:00:55 GMT -5
Jersey, your first post in this thread, despite your anti-assassination stance, is typical liberal rhetoric in this year's election. All I hear from my liberal friends (I personally am a moderate who tends to lean to the right more often than the left) and from liberal commentators about stuff like this is "I'm not saying someone should do something like that, BUT..." and then they go off on a list of complaints about the President. The proper response to reading something like this is nauseousness, anger, or both, not a rationalization of all the other points except the "assassination plea". It is true that one outlandish statement or inaccuracy in something does not generally mean you can disregard the rest of it. But come on, the author just asked someone to put a bullet into the President of the United States. It's inexcuseable, and no part of it deserves protection under any amendment that anyone could ever imagine being written. My problem with liberals the world over is that they always take such an idealistic view of everything, saying we should do this, do that, protect one's right to the other thing...but get real. If liberals took a more practical view of things, they may have less to whine about. Then again, those that have woken up are generally referred to as "Republicans", so I digress. I guess they're like Red Sox fans - with nothing to complain about, they have no reason for being, so they have to find something else. Defending the author of this writing, which in effect is what you have done, sounds like someone just looking for something to argue about.
Also, nitpicking over the terms "slander" and "libel" was unnecessary. The terms are commonly misused, and while I don't advocate their misuse, using that as a point in which to disqualify everything bin said is exactly what you said he shouldn't do to the author of the Guardian piece. Does his misuse of slander make his argument moot? Or are you, excuse the term, "flip-flopping"?
And if I hear the term "win the peace" one more time, I'm going to find whoever says it and "win a piece" of their face. What the (insert an expletive of your choosing) does "win the peace" mean? It implies victory, which only comes from a conflict of some sort. Peace can only be "won" after a conflict, and since the conflict in Iraq is not over (and nobody has said it is - the President only declared the end of "major combat operations", not the whole ordeal), we have not had a chance to see what the administration might do with regards to peace. By the way, this is a general gripe, not a personal one. I think "win the peace", "I have a plan", and "Mary Cheney is a lesbian" are getting seriously close to overtaking "flip-flop" as the most overused terms of the election, if they haven't already.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Oct 23, 2004 21:10:30 GMT -5
Joe, thanks for chiming in. I've enjoyed your contributions and wish that I had more time to respond to many of them. Maybe what I said was a reflection of liberal rhetoric. So what? Is that any more wrong than Cheney saying the US would be attacked if Kerry was elected or the USSR would have won the Cold War if Kerry had his way (which was quite similar to the Cheney way during the Cold War). You display a visceral dislike for liberals, which you are entitled to do, but your analysis seems to also incorporate a sentiment that liberals are inherently wrong or somewhat immoral in their approach. With that, I disagree respectfully.
As for the "waking up" bit, I find that a bit silly considering those who have had the most time to wake up (seniors) vote predominantly for Democrats. ;D
I wouldn't have typically nitpicked on the slander business for the reasons that you mention, but, to my knowledge, bin went to law school, so he should know better. An important first step to getting some standing in court is filing the correct charges based on the evidence offered.
Winning the peace is something that occurs concomitantly with the conflict, which FDR demonstrated so effectively during WWII to the degree that was possible in the international environment. It is not something where you size things up once a war or conflicts are over and go about planning for peace.
|
|