Subject:
|
Re: Danish cartoons outrage some Moslem groups and nations
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 9 Feb 2006 19:08:33 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1784 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
|
| |
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.
|
I don’t remember the exact quotation, but let’s be honest here. Scalia, to
Coulter, is one of the “good guys”. I’m sure that if she had to pick a Justice
to poison, he wouldn’t really be her first choice.
| |
| |
| |
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?
|
Slightly different because Maher differs from Scalia politically, but in the
end, yes.
No self-respecting Conservative laughs at Bill Maher’s jokes...;-)
They’d excoriate him. It’s all a part of the “game”. First, they’d need to
come up with a name for him-- “tweety”, “Hitlary”, something like that (maybe
they already have?) Bill “Marred”? Something like that. And then everyone
piles on and curses in a synchophantic, reassuring lovefest until the next
talking point comes up. Or was that on DU? Makes no difference. Same animal,
different colored stripes...
| |
| |
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!
|
See. Now we are standing together in a bi-partisan synchophantic lovefest!
:grouphug:
| |
| |
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.
|
Now wattaminit! I thought we had established that Robertson was just a “fringe
loonie”, not a “dangerous” one. I need demonstrable prove of the “dangerous”
adjective. OBL put the demon in “demonstable”.
| |
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?
Those are honest and sincere questions, with no intended sarcasm.
|
Yeah, and tough ones, too. Honestly, I don’t know how a completely consistent
Christian can also be a world leader. The position, by definition, requires
compromise all of the time. Many decisions are made, not based on Christian
ethics, but on utilitarian ethics. Dropping the H-bomb for instance. Not a
Christian practice, as such. I think every Christian leader makes unChristian
decisions with the humble prayer under their breath “forgive me for what I’m
about to do”.
Yeah, Bush could do with a little more humility over all of the war issues.
Politically, though, humility appears weak, and weakness is the absolute last
thing Bush wants to project to those who only respect power and authority.
The sign of a great leader is one who can humbly serve his country, all the
while project and command authority.
| |
(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...)
|
No. I did inquire though. My money is on lack of expletives;-)
JOHN
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
