or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Do you believe President Bush's actions justify impeachment?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Do you believe President Bush's actions justify impeachment? - Page 2

post #41 of 257
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

You must have missed this earlier:

Your're getting warmer -- but misdirection off into the hate of a different group proves....?

Wait, does this mean that if we all exude off-the-scale hatred, wish our political opponents dead, and create cartoons of them burning in hell tormented by aborted babies, that the world will be a safer place?

No.


(Ingnoring my evidence/point isn't quite the same thing as arguing against it.)

Bomb Plot Thwarted at Falwell's Funeral
Student Arrested With Homemade Bombs, Three Other Suspects Sought


"Even in death, the Rev. Jerry Falwell rouses the most volatile of emotions.

Authorities arrested a Liberty University student for having several gasoline-based bombs in his car.

The student, 19-year-old Mark Ewell of Amissville, Va., reportedly told authorities that he was making the bombs...

...wait for it...

...to stop protesters from disrupting the funeral service."

Topic over.
post #42 of 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

You are the joke. Part of the 25 percenters that still cling to any vestige of "good" he has done.

1) Stealing the election?

2) Illegal Wiretapping?

and to complete the trifecta the Democrats need to put Bush and Cheney on the stand and they will certainly lie about it which will bring us to...

3) Perjury.

And its over. But the Democrats want the anger to motivate the election. It's very cynical and will eventually be seen as such. Then the Democrats will be found just as derelict in their duty for not impeaching.

The political cycle continues...\

1.

2. Illegal wiretapping? Hmm. What you fail to understand is this is a debate about Presidential authority, not the President personally having committed a crime. The court finding it can't be done without a warrant wouldn't mean anyone is a criminal.

3. Perjury? Wait...hold on a sec.

OK, that's better. Please, lay out your case for "perjury." I haven't had a good laugh in a sentence or two.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #43 of 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

After avoiding AI and reading The Economist for a couple of months, coming back to these forums, and attempting to find this Neanderthal drivel even worth commenting on, is a serious challenge.

This is a repeat of the sort of sentiment that came out in full force with Falwell's death. Falwell wasn't just wrong he was evil---so evil that the world was 'better off' without him --he needed death. Now with Bush we see the same thing: he's not wrong, he's a scheming demon. He didn't get a big bag of crap dumped in his lap on 9/11 and mismanage parts of his response -- he is Hitler, after our rights, bent on taking our rights away, while somehow simultaneously being an idiot, a frat boy incapable of abstract thinking.

This is nothing more than intellectual leg-humping of messianic dreams for some whiter-than-white, uber-politician who will save us all from our own bad choices -- all the while pretending that the inertia of a nation can be toyed with by a single Democratic speaker of the House.

But there is a very, very dark side to what I'm seeing.

There is/was no amount of warped/selective glances at their (Bush, Falwell, etc) performance to 'cement' the point. The amount of bitter, bitter, hatred poured out here is phenomenal, enough to build a couple dozen Dachaus. Raise a couple of generations of children on that sentiment, and no good can come from this. Remember: Falwell deserved death -- so by extension, so do I for calling homosexuality sin. Bush deserves prison -- to be silenced -- for his 'crimes'. The gay community can't, can't, can't be told they are wrong in their lifestyle choice. Can't -- it's nearly a 'hate crime'. It doesn't matter if it's coming from the gay lobby or the The Colbert Report. Very sly, and very dark.

This is no longer disagreement, this is an attempt at stigmatization, social coercion, and demonization -- the same stripe of thought/rehtoric/actions that the lovey lefties of the 20th century employed when they irrigated the Earth with the blood of 40,000,000 souls. Nothing good can come from this.

Post of the year.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #44 of 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

On all those sites, the comments -- thousands of them -- were profoundly disturbed. I could post some if you'd like. These were comments by a general public fed on a diet of hate, who have been taught to hate reflexively. Tell me fantasising about someone burning in hell is a good thing, or rather, psychologically damaging?


But you avoided Hitchens' comments, and you avoided the cartoons, as well as the 'Bush is Hilter mantra', and the Palm 'dOr/Academy-Award winning conspiracy theories. Again, was this deliberate?

You might be right about the comments. But who are these commenters? Liberals? Conservatives masquerading as liberals in order to show how evil the liberals are? Trolls intentionally trying to get a rise out of people? One guy posting under a zillion different names? Who knows? I also don't know anything about Digg, or about cartoons, or about what Hitchens said.

But I do know a couple of things. I know that when you look at the pieces by the people who run the blogs in question, people who are actually identifiable, there's nothing bad at all, and, in the case of Daily Kos, nothing at all. I know that much of what Bush and Falwell have done to my country is wrong, and that what they have done that is wrong should be publicly criticized.

And I also know that in this thread, the only one displaying off-the-charts hatred is you, dmz. Who made a Hitler comparison? Who likened their opponents to slaughtering 40 million souls? You dmz, no one else.

[edit] Oh, and one more thing that I just noticed: You claim that people are fantasizing about someone burning in hell? And how it's wrong to have such thoughts? I couldn't agree more, dmz. It's fundamentally immoral. So let me ask you: Who genuinely believes that God burns people in hell, liberal blog commenters, or conservative Christians like Falwell?
post #45 of 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

Bomb Plot Thwarted at Falwell's Funeral
Student Arrested With Homemade Bombs, Three Other Suspects Sought


"Even in death, the Rev. Jerry Falwell rouses the most volatile of emotions.

Authorities arrested a Liberty University student for having several gasoline-based bombs in his car.

The student, 19-year-old Mark Ewell of Amissville, Va., reportedly told authorities that he was making the bombs...

...wait for it...

...to stop protesters from disrupting the funeral service."

Topic over.

...and that would be a 'guilt by association' tack. Can't go there.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #46 of 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

...and that would be a 'guilt by association' tack. Can't go there.

Guilty by association? Would that be anything like talking about anonymous, allegedly liberal internet commenters?
post #47 of 257
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


1.

Ha Ha Ha

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

2. Illegal wiretapping? Hmm. What you fail to understand is this is a debate about Presidential authority, not the President personally having committed a crime. The court finding it can't be done without a warrant wouldn't mean anyone is a criminal.

Ho Ho Ho

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

3. Perjury? Wait...hold on a sec.
OK, that's better. Please, lay out your case for "perjury." I haven't had a good laugh in a sentence or two.

Well, that is a hypothetical scenario I presented there. But Bush and Cheney's "buddy system" used for testifying to the 9|11 commission smelled funny to me.
post #48 of 257
Thread Starter 
post #49 of 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

You might be right about the comments. But who are these commenters? Liberals? Conservatives masquerading as liberals in order to show how evil the liberals are? Trolls intentionally trying to get a rise out of people? One guy posting under a zillion different names? Who knows? I also don't know anything about Digg and I don't know anything about what Hitchens said.

But I do know a couple of things. I know that when you look at the pieces by the people who run the blogs in question, people who are actually identifiable, there's nothing bad at all, and, in the case of Daily Kos, nothing at all. I know that much of what Bush and Falwell have done to my country is wrong, and that what they have done that is wrong should be publicly criticized.

And I also know that in this thread, the only one displaying off-the-charts hatred is you, dmz. Who made a Hitler comparison? Who likened their opponents to slaughtering 40 million souls? You dmz, no one else.

You're losing coherency before you even get off the ground, there, BRussell. I never compared anyone to Hitler, and there is no hatred of any kind in anything I'm saying.

The hatred I'm beginning to see is not reasoned in any way, it is reflexive, and that is exactly the sort of brute anger that fed several generations in the run up to the Holocaust. I've been reading this with Bush's coverage and saw it after Falwell's death. That is a fact. Reflexive hatred is trouble, and you know it.

Inventing "hatred" and ascribing it falsely is trouble as well. So is the practice of dehumanizing people who simply don't "deserve" the "favor" of respect, due to their unfavorable opinion, or speech. The common practice now of ridicule, not criticism, or disagreement, is just as poisonous -- e.g., Colbert and his writers can slyly imply that because Dobson believes homosexuality is a sin, he is a bigot, and has nothing legitimate to add to the debate over Canadian-style 'hate-crime' legislation.

You still won't comment on the Palm'dOr conspiracies, or the cartoons posted here on AI.

Not Nice

More tomorrow.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #50 of 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

I never compared anyone to Hitler, and there is no hatred of any kind in anything I'm saying.

The hatred I'm beginning to see is not reasoned in any way, it is reflexive, and that is exactly the sort of brute anger that fed several generations in the run up to the Holocaust.

So, from what I understand here, you haven't compared people to hitler, but rather compare the perceived brutally angry crowd as similar to 1930-40s germany; a culture that enabled hitler? How do you deny godwin in one sentence and thrust him into your next sentence? ...maybe i'm stupid and that was intentional.
post #51 of 257
Thread Starter 
post #52 of 257
All I can say, dmz, is that you're the only one who has mentioned Nazi atrocities, and you did it yet again in the very post where you say you don't do it.

dmz: "I never compared anyone to Hitler, and there is no hatred of any kind in anything I'm saying."

dmz, in the very next sentence: "The hatred I'm beginning to see is not reasoned in any way, it is reflexive, and that is exactly the sort of brute anger that fed several generations in the run up to the Holocaust."

You're an unhinged hater, dmz, and you're the only one in this thread.
post #53 of 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

All I can say, dmz, is that you're the only one who has mentioned Nazi atrocities, and you did it yet again in the very post where you say you don't do it.

dmz: "I never compared anyone to Hitler, and there is no hatred of any kind in anything I'm saying."

dmz, in the very next sentence: "The hatred I'm beginning to see is not reasoned in any way, it is reflexive, and that is exactly the sort of brute anger that fed several generations in the run up to the Holocaust."

You're an unhinged hater, dmz, and you're the only one in this thread.

Thank you.

To sum up: liberals are so crazed by hate they may start building concentration camps. I make this entirely balanced and non-perjorative assessment based on something I'm calling "the Palm d'Or conspiracy", whatever that is, some anonymous posters on teh internets, some cartoons posted here, and the tired old meme that "the left" is always calling Bush "Hitler", a phenomena that has escaped my attention (although "liberal fascism" seems to be in quite common currency, but that's different because, you know, because the left really is like Hitler, so it's a completely different thing.

Despite the highly contingent nature of my "evidence", I will rule that "guilt by association" is disallowed, for everybody but me.

Despite the flimsy sourcing for my cartoonish depiction of "the left" I will also disallow voluminous examples of actual, public spokespeople for the right saying appalling things, since "two wrongs don't make a right", and, anyway, Dachau, ya'll, you can practically smell the hair burning.

I mean, really: people that filled with hate are barely people. Illegitimate. A cancer on the soul of the country. God, what a glorious day it would be if the real Americans, the good Americans rose up and dealt a mighty blow to these gutter dwelling sub-humans. And quick, before they build concentration camps.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #54 of 257
Not sure how the LAPD firing at the rally had anything to do with Bush, considering the LAPD's long record in the (mis)use of force. Otherwise, yes, I wouldn't be upset if he got impeached. Although it might do as much damage to the Dems right now if they tried for impeachment, as was previously posted.
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
post #55 of 257
SDW, humor me and answer me this.

You always scream that Bush has not done anything "remotely" criminal. Meanwhile people point out things he has been done tht can easily be considered criminal. They are definitely indictable.

But my question is this. For a moment ignore the legal debate and look at the moral debate.

Was what Bush has done less "wrong" then what Clinton did? Did Clinton do more harm to the country to deserve impeachment, while Bush didn't DESERVE impeachment?

This is what's wrong with you.

You don't know the difference between right and wrong.

What Bush did I'm convinced was criminal, and at least needs to be heard in court to determine whether it was. But clearly, it was wrong on a level incomparable to anything Clinton ever did.
post #56 of 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

The amount of bitter, bitter, hatred poured out here is phenomenal, enough to build a couple dozen Dachaus. Raise a couple of generations of children on that sentiment, and no good can come from this. Remember: Falwell deserved death -- so by extension, so do I for calling homosexuality sin. Bush deserves prison -- to be silenced -- for his 'crimes'. The gay community can't, can't, can't be told they are wrong in their lifestyle choice. Can't -- it's nearly a 'hate crime'. It doesn't matter if it's coming from the gay lobby or the The Colbert Report. Very sly, and very dark..[/I]

I've seen this before.

What happened at Dachau was this: a logistics team in an office in Berlin had worked out the most efficient way of moving thousands upon thousands of innocent people to their deaths by train on specially-constructed tracks, and there they were massacred because of their ancestry, regardless of their politics or even their religion.

What dmz is doing, I believe, and without the balls to declare it openly, is saying that poor, conspired-against Christians run the same risk of society turning on them and driving them to massacre.

And even if he isn't, and I'm wrong, the comparison is disgusting. We've lost a potential Hitler in Falwell, not a potential Anne Frank. Falwell's religion isn't an excuse for the nature of his beliefs. He does not 'get a free pass', if you will.

Dachau's not the kind of thing you invoke in a thread on the internet to try and 'win'. And it's definitely not the kind of thing you invoke to defend someone with the beliefs of a Falwell.
post #57 of 257
"Hate crimes" are really "thought crimes." There's a nice road to go down.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #58 of 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

"Hate crimes" are really "thought crimes." There's a nice road to go down.

Not in the least.

Why would you say that?
post #59 of 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

Not in the least.

Why would you say that?

Because a crime is a crime, principally. If you kill someone because they are gay, or someone else randomly, the fact is that a person is dead and there is a penalty for that. It creates a situation where some people's lives are worth more than others, because they fit in a hate-crime protected class. The actions are the same. The punishments and charges should be the same. We do not need special classes of "superior victims." Eventually, there could be no end to who could be a protected class, maybe even the government itself. And what happens when a person commits a random crime and later finds they attacked a "superior victim" whose safety is more sacred than everyone else's? It's a recipe for serious problems and the further erosion of equality under law. It's not enough that the rich are protected via their means, now we can create endless special groups that also have greater protections afforded them. Hows about we get tough on crime against EVERYONE, shall well?

Hate-crime laws create an inequality in the justice system that is supposed to be blind to personal characteristics. In this country, we have the right, however distasteful, to believe how we want. Killing is illegal, no matter who is killed, except in self-defense situations. To put the government in the position of discerning what constitutes "extra-evil thinking" in an inherently evil act is a dangerous slope. In reality, hate crime laws are nothing more than pandering on the part of politicians who want to be seen "doing something" regardless of what it does to the overall climate of freedom and legal equality.

"Proving" hate is also problematic. It leads to the government subjectively interpreting your personal habits, media of preference, books owned, personal writings, etc. It is the essence of judging THINKING, not the act itself. Thus, a thought crime.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #60 of 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

All I can say, dmz, is that you're the only one who has mentioned Nazi atrocities, and you did it yet again in the very post where you say you don't do it.

dmz: "I never compared anyone to Hitler, and there is no hatred of any kind in anything I'm saying."

dmz, in the very next sentence: "The hatred I'm beginning to see is not reasoned in any way, it is reflexive, and that is exactly the sort of brute anger that fed several generations in the run up to the Holocaust."

You're an unhinged hater, dmz, and you're the only one in this thread.

Your only response is a switch-up between denying there is or was a pervasive bitter, bitter, hatred of Bush or Falwell, and that pointing out hatred is hatred. We're back to the 'gosh, dmz, I don't what you're talking about' stage of the argument awfully fast this time, aren't we?

My original point stands: there is a bitter, bitter hatred in this country directed at the likes Bush and Falwell -- to the point of wishing them death. Read Peggy Noonan's article [that I linked to]. Nothing good will come from this.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #61 of 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hassan i Sabbah View Post

I've seen this before.

What happened at Dachau was this: a logistics team in an office in Berlin had worked out the most efficient way of moving thousands upon thousands of innocent people to their deaths by train on specially-constructed tracks, and there they were massacred because of their ancestry, regardless of their politics or even their religion.

What dmz is doing, I believe, and without the balls to declare it openly, is saying that poor, conspired-against Christians run the same risk of society turning on them and driving them to massacre.

And even if he isn't, and I'm wrong, the comparison is disgusting. We've lost a potential Hitler in Falwell, not a potential Anne Frank. Falwell's religion isn't an excuse for the nature of his beliefs. He does not 'get a free pass', if you will.

Dachau's not the kind of thing you invoke in a thread on the internet to try and 'win'. And it's definitely not the kind of thing you invoke to defend someone with the beliefs of a Falwell.

Read Peggy Noonan's article. It's the "Not Nice". link near the top of the page.

That said, many of Falwell's beliefs are my own (certainly the some of the ones that are cited as 'hate'), as with millions of others -- are we all 'potential Hitlers?' -point being, we are now, in the culture at large, no longer hiding behind the 'tolerance' doublespeak, but are beginning to see a coalescing of hatred directed from a new absolutism.

So what position, or views did Bush and Falwell take that denied them the right to be treated with anything resembling respect? Or is it reflexive -- beyond anyone's control? The cartoons fantasizing about Falwell in hell just sort of 'bubble up?'

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #62 of 257
Dear potential Hitler,
After you are finished designing the new VW, please help me understand how you will tell someone's religion by the length of their second toe (Jews excluded, we know their second toe is shorther than the big toe so that's not fair). Also how the heck are you going to define the "American" race and keep it pure?
I can see how your "Arbeit mach frei" is applied in the US as well as "Hart wie Kruppstahl" unfortunately Kruppstahl doesn't have brains. How about the "Gelbe Gefahr"...?

This post is to point out that I do not agree with anyone comparing anybody to Hitler. Mr. Adolf should be left dead. You may only think of him if you get into a VW... Falwell and him will have a nice time and plenty of gay sex, I drink to their love....
post #63 of 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamac View Post

... "Arbeit mach frei"

Careful with that. You'll bring the wrath of Northgate.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #64 of 257
Thread Starter 
post #65 of 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

Read Peggy Noonan's article. It's the "Not Nice". link near the top of the page.

That said, many of Falwell's beliefs are my own (certainly the some of the ones that are cited as 'hate'), as with millions of others -- are we all 'potential Hitlers?' -point being, we are now, in the culture at large, no longer hiding behind the 'tolerance' doublespeak, but are beginning to see a coalescing of hatred directed from a new absolutism.

So what position, or views did Bush and Falwell take that denied them the right to be treated with anything resembling respect? Or is it reflexive -- beyond anyone's control? The cartoons fantasizing about Falwell in hell just sort of 'bubble up?'

Poor ikkle Christians. The bad men don't like you and want you to renounce your Jesus.

Look, you play the Dachau card, you lose, I'm with Artman. I don't give a shit how bad you perceive things to be, no-one's going to ship you off to concentration camps. You are the majority. You're in charge. It's OK. You can relax. They're not going to make you wear a day-glo crucifix. You won't have to hide in an attic. The comparison is revolting, to me at least, because no matter how bad things get for you, 6,000,000 of you aren't going to die. OK? So STOP IT, and don't dilute the memory of this horror to win an argument on the internet.

This 'coalescing hatred' is directed to people who have a choice over their actions, thought and expression and choose to make normal, loving people feel threatened, or choose to say that some normal, loving people don't deserve the rights the rest of us have.

People who do this deserve the strongest possible condemnation and don't deserve to be remembered with dignity.

Jerry Falwell? Fuck him. Fuck him, the Westboro Baptist Church and everyone else who makes it difficult for normal, loving people to be in love.
post #66 of 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hassan i Sabbah View Post

Poor ikkle Christians. The bad men don't like you and want you to renounce your Jesus.

Look, you play the Dachau card, you lose, I'm with Artman. I don't give a shit how bad you perceive things to be, no-one's going to ship you off to concentration camps. You are the majority. You're in charge. It's OK. You can relax. They're not going to make you wear a day-glo crucifix. You won't have to hide in an attic. The comparison is revolting, to me at least, because no matter how bad things get for you, 6,000,000 of you aren't going to die. OK? So STOP IT, and don't dilute the memory of this horror to win an argument on the internet.

This 'coalescing hatred' is directed to people who have a choice over their actions, thought and expression and choose to make normal, loving people feel threatened, or choose to say that some normal, loving people don't deserve the rights the rest of us have.

People who do this deserve the strongest possible condemnation and don't deserve to be remembered with dignity.

Jerry Falwell? Fuck him. Fuck him, the Westboro Baptist Church and everyone else who makes it difficult for normal, loving people to be in love.

Was the question too difficult? Here it is again, in English:

...many of Falwell's beliefs are my own (certainly the some of the ones that are cited as 'hate'), as with millions of others -- are we all 'potential Hitlers?'

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #67 of 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

Was the question too difficult? Here it is again, in English:

...many of Falwell's beliefs are my own (certainly the some of the ones that are cited as 'hate'), as with millions of others -- are we all 'potential Hitlers?'

Way to completely disregard a post, dmz.

Anyway. Everyone hates Jerry Falwell. Even Christians.
post #68 of 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hassan i Sabbah View Post

Way to completely disregard a post, dmz.

Anyway. Everyone hates Jerry Falwell. Even Christians.

BRussell denies the hate exists at all (except of course with me), and you want to use misdirection to fixate out in Dachau land to discredit my observations as coming from a hypochondriac.

Just answer the question. My twelve-year daughter needs to read this later. BRussell's academic sophistry is one stripe of hate she'll experience in life, I need a stool sample of yours.

Answer, please, just be honest, lay that worldview on me, baby!

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #69 of 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

BRussell denies the hate exists at all (except of course with me), and you want to use misdirection to fixate out in Dachau land to discredit my observations as coming from a hypochondriac.

Just answer the question. My twelve-year daughter needs to read this later. BRussell's academic sophistry is one stripe of hate she'll experience in life, I need a stool sample of yours.

Answer, please, just be honest, lay that worldview on me, baby!

Um... you compared the plight of Christians in the US to the plight of Jews in Nazi Germany. This is worthy of objection. Sorry for not being a sport and sort of... continuing to point out that there's an enormous elephant weeing all over the kitchen and everything.

You bought Hitler into the thread, I think it's distasteful, so no, I won't play. Sorry.
post #70 of 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hassan i Sabbah View Post

Um... you compared the plight of Christians in the US to the plight of Jews in Nazi Germany. This is worthy of objection. Sorry for not being a sport and sort of... continuing to point out that there's an enormous elephant weeing all over the kitchen and everything.

You bought Hitler into the thread, I think it's distasteful, so no, I won't play. Sorry.

No, I compared levels of hatred, and pointed out how destructive they could/can be (a point that has, very curiously, been largely ignored) and used some figurative language to do it-- a crumb that you've snatched up to make a meal of.

Regardless, when it comes to 'discussing' belief systems today, we aren't talking in terms of 'tolerance' any more, are we?

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #71 of 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

Your only response is a switch-up between denying there is or was a pervasive bitter, bitter, hatred of Bush or Falwell, and that pointing out hatred is hatred. We're back to the 'gosh, dmz, I don't what you're talking about' stage of the argument awfully fast this time, aren't we?

My original point stands: there is a bitter, bitter hatred in this country directed at the likes Bush and Falwell -- to the point of wishing them death. Read Peggy Noonan's article [that I linked to]. Nothing good will come from this.

I've simply pointed out facts dmz.

Fact 1: You claimed Daily Kos and Huffington Post were Dachau-like in their hatred after Falwell's death. I was skeptical so I looked, I provided the links, and your allegation was factually incorrect.

Fact 2: You claimed that these liberals compared nice conservatives to Hitler. But, ironically, the one making Nazi comparisons was you. Then you falsely claimed you would never do such a thing, and in the very next sentence you did it again.

In short, not only was your evidence of liberal hatred and Nazi comparisons false, but the evidence was true that you were directing hatred and Nazi comparisons at others. It was quite an astonishing display of a lack of self-awareness.
post #72 of 257
Thread Starter 


...this thread is...
post #73 of 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

I've simply pointed out facts dmz.

Fact 1: You claimed Daily Kos and Huffington Post were Dachau-like in their hatred after Falwell's death. I was skeptical so I looked, I provided the links, and your allegation was factually incorrect.

Fact 2: You claimed that these liberals compared nice conservatives to Hitler. But, ironically, the one making Nazi comparisons was you. Then you falsely claimed you would never do such a thing, and in the very next sentence you did it again.

In short, not only was your evidence of liberal hatred and Nazi comparisons false, but the evidence was true that you were directing hatred and Nazi comparisons at others. It was quite an astonishing display of a lack of self-awareness.

"Fact" 1 is false. The comments on those sites (and digg) were vicious. Agian, if you would like me to post some, I will.

"Fact" 2 is again, misdirection into the Dachau reference, to avoid owning up to the hate that is out there -- that the cartoons you still refuse to countenance were/are an off-the-scale popular cultural hate-fest. It also gives you cover from countenancing the fact that the off-the-scale hate poured onto figures like Bush and Falwell is unhealthy and leads to worse. It also allows you to ignore my final point, that there is a disturbing trend involving writing people off if they disagree with you, to the point of dehumanizing them.

Edit: And I don't think you'd touch that Noonan piece with a ten-foot pole.

Lame, lame, lame, lame, lame!

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #74 of 257
dmz I have no doubt that some anonymous trolls post nasty stuff on the internet. But I also have no doubt that the rhetoric is less nasty than it has been in the past, not more nasty (look at the Clinton years, or even look at 18th and 19th century America). This rhetoric always comes from anonymous commenters on the internet, and, by and large, even the liberal blog-writers like Kos do not engage in it, let alone TV personalities, whereas the over-the-top conservative stuff comes from their mainstream figures (like Jerry "God kills fags with AIDS" Falwell) and opinion columnists and pundits (like Ann "McVeigh should have bombed the Times" Coulter and Bill "I hope terrorists take out San Francisco" O'Reilly.)

Furthermore, the fact that you can't see that you committed the very sin you were falsely accusing other of committing is truly astonishing.
post #75 of 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

dmz I have no doubt that some anonymous trolls post nasty stuff on the internet. But I also have no doubt that the rhetoric is less nasty than it has been in the past, not more nasty (look at the Clinton years, or even look at 18th and 19th century America). This rhetoric always comes from anonymous commenters on the internet, and, by and large, even the liberal blog-writers like Kos do not engage in it, let alone TV personalities, whereas the nasty conservative stuff comes from their mainstream figures (like Falwell) and opinion columnists and pundits (like Coulter).

Thank you. My sentiments exactly.

There's no shortage of "hatred" spewing from the lips of Coulter, Limbaugh, Hannity, especially Savage, et al, for hours a day, every day of the week, on both radio AND television, DAILY. But some anonymous posts in the "comments" section of a blog is supposedly the de facto standard applied to ALL liberals.

Unbelievable.
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #76 of 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northgate View Post

Thank you. My sentiments exactly.

There's no shortage of "hatred" spewing from the lips of Coulter, Limbaugh, Hannity, especially Savage, et al, for hours a day, every day of the week, on both radio AND television, DAILY. But some anonymous posts in the "comments" section of a blog is supposedly the de facto standard applied to ALL liberals.

Unbelievable.

I actually wouldn't be at all surprised if conservatives have decided to post some outrageous comments on some of these places just to then turn around and produce evidence of liberal unhingedness.
post #77 of 257
What is it with white, affluent, heterosexual christians in this country that so many of them are bound and determined to see themselves as a victimized minority?

Is it some kind of hitherto unexplored "David and Goliath" syndrome wherein a sense of purpose is derived only if one feels oneself to be battling against nearly insurmountable odds?

DMZ: if you want vitriolic rhetoric, you can find it from any neck of the woods you go looking. Christians, liberals, men, women, the rich, the poor, industrialists and environmentalists, gay activists and the homophobic-- if I look for it, I can find examples of heated, angry, impolitic speech from any of those groups. I can even post such speech on the internets, and fulminate darkly about the depravity and rage of insert your subgroup here.

Much more instructive, I think, would be the general tenor of of the public remarks of representitive members of a group.

So: Ward Churchill, say, is a random nut-job that doesn't speak for anyone but himself (although he was used, inevitably, as an exemplar of "liberal rage", by people just like you).

On the other hand, take another look at the list of remarks by major right-wing figures that was posted earlier. Instead of just waving that off as irrelevant, try thinking about who is being quoted and what status they have within the right-wing punditry community.

Very specific, very pervasive, and reasonably characterized as "right-wing thought", I think.

Then look at your list of people who comment on blogs, editorial cartoons, unnamed leftists who call Bush "Hitler" and that Palm d'Or thing.

If you'd like, you might spare a moment to consider the recent spate of describing "the left", or "liberals", or "the Democrats" as being treasonous enemies of the country who were actively seeking our destruction, language, I would point out, not limited to internet commentary but demonstrably part of the mainstream right-wing world view, repeated endlessly in editorials, cable screaming head shows, and by members of the fucking Bush administration, notably Mr. Dick Cheney.

Now, you tell me: which is more fertile ground for some kind of metastasizing of hatred into actual violence? Impolite internet commentators, reacting to the specific acts of a specific administration that any reasonable observer would agree are at least very, very controversial, or a ubiquitous deployment of the notion that liberals are traitorous terror lovers that want to see America destroyed? Which one is the call to action?
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #78 of 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

What is it with white, affluent, heterosexual christians in this country that so many of them are bound and determined to see themselves as a victimized minority?

I've been wondering the same thing for a few years now.

The silly "radical secularism" argument holds absolutely no water when the majority of the nation considers themselves Christians and are wildly over-represented in government. Let's not get into the absolutely ridiculous War on Christmas "crisis" hyped up by O'Reilly and Gibson to help sell Gibson's book.

And the blind followers lap it all up without a single bit of fact checking to see if the Christian faith is really At War with rampant atheism.
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #79 of 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

dmz I have no doubt that some anonymous trolls post nasty stuff on the internet. But I also have no doubt that the rhetoric is less nasty than it has been in the past, not more nasty (look at the Clinton years, or even look at 18th and 19th century America). This rhetoric always comes from anonymous commenters on the internet, and, by and large, even the liberal blog-writers like Kos do not engage in it, let alone TV personalities, whereas the over-the-top conservative stuff comes from their mainstream figures (like Jerry "God kills fags with AIDS" Falwell) and opinion columnists and pundits (like Ann "McVeigh should have bombed the Times" Coulter and Bill "I hope terrorists take out San Francisco" O'Reilly.)

Furthermore, the fact that you can't see that you committed the very sin you were falsely accusing other of committing is truly astonishing.

Well -- agian -- misdirecting to (and misquoting) other hate speech, one more time, is irrelevant. Squirming's no fun, is it? If you could answer my points, you would have done so by now. Pretty darn disappointing.

Once more, in English:

...misdirection into the Dachau reference, to avoid owning up to the hate that is out there -- that the cartoons you still refuse to countenance were/are an off-the-scale popular cultural hate-fest. It also gives you cover from countenancing the fact that the off-the-scale hate poured onto figures like Bush and Falwell is unhealthy and leads to worse. It also allows you to ignore my final point, that there is a disturbing trend involving writing people off if they disagree with you, to the point of dehumanizing them.

Edit: And I don't think you'd touch that Noonan piece with a ten-foot pole.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #80 of 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

Ha Ha Ha



Ho Ho Ho



Well, that is a hypothetical scenario I presented there. But Bush and Cheney's "buddy system" used for testifying to the 9|11 commission smelled funny to me.

1. So that means Bush "stole" the election? Come on...you can't seriously believe that.

2. Hello? Is this thing on? It's a debate about authority.

3. Smelling "funny" doesn't equate to perjury. Sorry, big guy.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Do you believe President Bush's actions justify impeachment?