To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 27606
27605  |  27607
Subject: 
Re: Danish cartoons outrage some Moslem groups and nations
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Thu, 9 Feb 2006 18:37:24 GMT
Viewed: 
1776 times
  
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
   In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:

  
   Well, let’s see. If I go on-air to millions and declare that a certain US President should be assassinated, will Conservatives rally around me to protect my right to free speech?

There happens to be a law against that, and the Secret Service takes that stuff seriously. It’s best not to get cute in that arena.

Though I hesitate to use the words “cute” and “Ann Coulter” in the same post, I simply don’t see the distinction between her call for poisoning to be different from the hypothetical that I mentioned. Sure, she can claim that she’s joking, but if her only defense is that Supreme Court Justices--unlike the President--aren’t protected against seemingly idle verbal threats, then that’s a pretty lame defense.


And I agree with this assessment--calling for poisoning anyone is extremely bad taste--joking or no.

  
  
   Of course, if I were a dessicated, talentless hack who called for the poisoning of a sitting Supreme Court Justice, I suppose I could laugh off my terroristic threat as a “joke,” right?

Yeah, because it was meant as a joke (she’s a satirist, after all), so trying to misconstrue her meaning is disingenuous at best, Dave! I know that I have admonished against forming opinions based on “intent” in the past, but isn’t it obvious that that statement wasn’t a real threat?

Here’s a different hypothetical: If Bill Maher had said on-air that Scalia should be poisoned, would the Conservative masses accept that he was joking? Would they laugh? Would they defend Maher?


Oh that’d be the day... THere is a dichotomy between the ‘Left’ and the ‘Right’ with what they can get away with--the ‘Right’ could use the JPII funeral as a ‘he ws mostly in line with Dubya’s moral and political policies’ but the Left certainly couldn’t use LSK to show the inherent unjustness of Dubya--nosiree!!


  
   There are plenty of fringe loonies who are peaceful fringe loonies. There are even fringe loonies who spit hate, but are otherwise (relatively) harmless. It’s the ones who are burning and killing we need to worry about.

All right: I’m worried about the dangerous fringe loonies, then!


I’m not worries about the loonie at all--it looks like it’s doing quite well against the Yankee dollar right now

  
   My concern is that as the left and right get more and more over the top with their partisan rhetoric, they paint each other to be the very fringe loonies about which you speak-- essentially rendering the entire country a bin of fringe loonies!

   If the United States feels justified in issuing direct proclamations against outspoken, radical mullahs (and it does), then it should feel obligated to issue similar proclamations aginst outspoken, radical evangelists (as opposed to meeting with them and using them to drum up votes).

Politics. Did you ever believe it wasn’t nasty business?

Of course not, but Dubya can’t claim to be a “moral man” while conspiring with dangerous fringe loonies for the sake of political expediency. A nebulous morality of convenience ill-becomes a man who claims a black/white, Manichean worldview.

In the past few messages we’ve seen mention of “real Christian values,” and Phelps et al have been accused of failing to adhere to these. I accept that argument, but let me ask you this:

Do you believe that President Bush adheres to these “real Christian values?” Please don’t give him a pass by using the “he has to obey the law of the land” argument, because Kerry tried that and was repudiated and nearly denied Communion for it, so it’s clearly an untenable argument. Bush has declared his belief that our US laws come to us, indirectly perhaps, from God’s Decalogue. If US law conflicted with God’s law, which would Bush obey? And would he admit to it?


Well, we all know my position on Dubya--kick the bum out. I watched most of the televised funeral for LSK, and watching Bubba--there’s a good man.

And even Carter got a good lick in. But eh, as someone else on another blog posted, the ‘Conservatives’ won’t be happy until they tell you when you can create life, when you can end life, and what you can say at the funeral.


   Those are honest and sincere questions, with no intended sarcasm.

Dave!

(do you know why you got booted, by the way? I haven’t checked my personal email since last night, so maybe you’ve already answered me there...)

Das Boot?

Dave K



Message is in Reply To:
  Re: Danish cartoons outrage some Moslem groups and nations
 
(...) Though I hesitate to use the words "cute" and "Ann Coulter" in the same post, I simply don't see the distinction between her call for poisoning to be different from the hypothetical that I mentioned. Sure, she can claim that she's joking, but (...) (19 years ago, 9-Feb-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

109 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR