Post by jerseyhoya34 on May 5, 2006 17:17:37 GMT -5
You can pick which words to look up in the dictionary and act like writing some definition down advances your argument, but there seems to be some misunderstanding as to what I am saying. I have never said that criticism of Kennedy or his family is by its own nature intolerant. Until you are willing to acknowledge that my argument is about "some conservatives" and "some criticism of the Kennedy family," you're simply creating a straw man.
Nobody in the thread suggests that the legal system should not take its course in this or any other potentially criminal incident. I'm merely suggesting that the law distinguishes among offenders in terms of the level of punishment and individuals' assessments should mirror that in some way. Surely you distinguish between the 9/11 hijackers/Moussaoui (sp?) and someone like a Ted Kennedy.
Dan referenced "over the top Kennedy hater," which gets at my point. There are some conservatives who are moved by their intolerance of the Kennedys. (For some examples, check out "the premier" site for conservatives on the net, Free Republic. (Thread example: www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1626474/posts). One could make an argument that prominent conservative author Ann Coulter was intolerant when she accused T. Kennedy of treason when he spoke out against the torture of Iraqis in American-run prisons. Such a position represents an unwillingness to even acknowledge a contrary opinion as legitimate. Similarly, any comments about how Ted Kennedy sides with Al Qaeda or crap like that could be considered intolerant because it reflects an unwillingness to consider his position against things like Abu Ghraib torture as legitimate criticism of the war effort.
Do you think some comments about JFK's religion were intolerant during the 1960 campaign, or were they all tolerant? Do you think it is funny and tolerant when some conservative pundits and commentators poke fun at Ted Kennedy due to his apparent health problems?
Your comments about him "driving in to the capitol building" reflects a lack of understanding of the Patrick Kennedy case or a desire to sensationalize it for undisclosed reasons. It also calls into question your ability to make a credible argument about the incident. imilarly, your comments about Patrick kennedy getting off with a slap on the wrist are likewise premature. I can take a healthy debate, but let's stick to the facts and written word, as opposed to straw men and selective readings of posts.
Perhaps it is naive of me to think that some members of a party, which allegedly respects Christian values and teachings, would integrate forgiveness into their ideas and comments. All this after someone asked folks to discount a certain Vice President's record of DUI's 43 years ago and followed in this thread with a loaded question...Do we have to tolerate drunk driving? I guess so...oh wait.
(Source: hoyatalk2.proboards48.com/index.cgi?board=offtopic&action=display&thread=1139801400&page=2#1140046257)
Nobody in the thread suggests that the legal system should not take its course in this or any other potentially criminal incident. I'm merely suggesting that the law distinguishes among offenders in terms of the level of punishment and individuals' assessments should mirror that in some way. Surely you distinguish between the 9/11 hijackers/Moussaoui (sp?) and someone like a Ted Kennedy.
Dan referenced "over the top Kennedy hater," which gets at my point. There are some conservatives who are moved by their intolerance of the Kennedys. (For some examples, check out "the premier" site for conservatives on the net, Free Republic. (Thread example: www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1626474/posts). One could make an argument that prominent conservative author Ann Coulter was intolerant when she accused T. Kennedy of treason when he spoke out against the torture of Iraqis in American-run prisons. Such a position represents an unwillingness to even acknowledge a contrary opinion as legitimate. Similarly, any comments about how Ted Kennedy sides with Al Qaeda or crap like that could be considered intolerant because it reflects an unwillingness to consider his position against things like Abu Ghraib torture as legitimate criticism of the war effort.
Do you think some comments about JFK's religion were intolerant during the 1960 campaign, or were they all tolerant? Do you think it is funny and tolerant when some conservative pundits and commentators poke fun at Ted Kennedy due to his apparent health problems?
Your comments about him "driving in to the capitol building" reflects a lack of understanding of the Patrick Kennedy case or a desire to sensationalize it for undisclosed reasons. It also calls into question your ability to make a credible argument about the incident. imilarly, your comments about Patrick kennedy getting off with a slap on the wrist are likewise premature. I can take a healthy debate, but let's stick to the facts and written word, as opposed to straw men and selective readings of posts.
Perhaps it is naive of me to think that some members of a party, which allegedly respects Christian values and teachings, would integrate forgiveness into their ideas and comments. All this after someone asked folks to discount a certain Vice President's record of DUI's 43 years ago and followed in this thread with a loaded question...Do we have to tolerate drunk driving? I guess so...oh wait.
(Source: hoyatalk2.proboards48.com/index.cgi?board=offtopic&action=display&thread=1139801400&page=2#1140046257)