Text 3123, 137 rader
Skriven 2006-07-02 12:02:00 av Robert E Starr JR (3596.babylon5)
Ärende: Re: Atheists: America's m
=================================
* * * This message was from Amy Guskin to rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.m * * *
         * * * and has been forwarded to you by Lord Time * * *         
            -----------------------------------------------             

@MSGID: <0001HW.C0CC9FEA04E5C5E0F0407530@news.verizon.net>
@REPLY: <qv3p82l5efiuo3tnh9t68sh5udanal89f4@4ax.com>
>> On Sat, 1 Jul 2006 11:58:15 -0400, Carl wrote
(in article <w7WdnTTcKsoEBjvZnZ2dnUVZ_vudnZ2d@comcast.com>):

> 
> "Amy Guskin" <aisling@fjordstone.com> wrote in message 
> news:0001HW.C0C94C950463BAA2F0407530@news.verizon.net...
>>>> On Thu, 29 Jun 2006 00:56:05 -0400, Carl wrote
>> (in article <xeSdnWA3nOLewD7ZnZ2dnUVZ_uidnZ2d@comcast.com>):
>> 
> 
> Amy, As I mentioned elsewhere I've tried several times to respond to 
> this.... I'm going to try to be more brief because as everyone that has ever 
> reads my posts know, I don't type very well. <<

Carl, you're too hard on yourself!  You represent some of the finer typing on 
Usenet...  :-)

>>>> 
>> I held my tongue when you compared Dean to that C_____r woman, even though 
>> I
>> thought it was an outrageous statement.  Indeed, find me ANYTHING he's 
>> said
>> that compares to ANYTHING on this list of her quotes:
>> http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/funnyquotes/a/anncoulter.htm (and this 
>> is
>> a LIGHT list, not compiled by someone who hates her).  But I really have 
>> to
>> take exception to this.  Please cite some of Howard Dean's distortions so
>> that I can respond thoughtfully to this.
>> 
> 
> I snipped out 10 references because I *REALLY* dislike the idea of looking 
> up and posting references of a "he said this nasty thing" kind of thing.  I 
> will give one distortion though.
> 
> "The president and his right-wing Supreme Court think it is
> 'okay' to have the government take your house if they feel
> like putting a hotel where your house is."
> 
> Dean was referring to the Kelo vs New London case.
> 
> There are a few problems with this one.<<

My problem with A__e C______r isn't limited to - or even primarily - 
distortions of fact.  It's the absolutely unfounded and repulsive vitriol 
that she spews.  Did you read any of the quotes on that list?  Whether Dean 
was factually correct or not in that statement, he's not making despicable 
personal attacks against anyone.  Certainly nothing, EVER, like C_____r's 
recent comment about several of the 9/11 widows: "I've never seen people 
enjoying their husbands' deaths so much," "And by the way, how do we know 
their husbands weren't planning to divorce these harpies? Now that their 
shelf life is dwindling, they better hurry up and appear in Playboy."

 I mean, I feel like I have to go and _wash_ after reading that.  If this 
were an isolated incident, a verbal faux pas, it would be one thing.  But it 
isn't.  And she had plenty of opportunities to take it back, too - everyone 
who's interviewed her in recent weeks has asked her about it, and given her 
the opportunity.  Not only hasn't she taken it back; she added the divorce 
comment after standing by her initial comment.

Honestly, can you find _anything_ Dean has _ever_ said that even _approaches_ 
that level of unfounded malevolence?

>> Please notice that *every single time* I brought up something...like Reid, 
> Daschle, and Gephardt also taking money from Abramoff, like Peloksi and 
> Hillary Clinton's campaign financing irregularites and subsequent fines 
> fromt he FEC.... NOT ONCE did you or Josh ever say "Yeah, that was wrong." 
> The rebuttal was always "Yeah, but Republicans are worse!" <<

Yes, if Pelosi's campaign finance irregularities are found to be, in fact, 
irregular (I'm sorry that I don't know much about this particular issue), she 
is _wrong_.  Yes, Democrats who have taken money from Abramoff are _wrong_.  
Yes, William Jefferson is slime (ha, got one you didn't even mention! <g>).  
I think the point Josh is making when he says "Yeah, Republicans are worse!" 
is that...um....yeah, Republicans _are_ worse, across the board.  Just read 
the news and it'll back that up.

>> Many people on both sides minimize, dismiss or forgive offenses by people on


> their side of the political fence and magnify the same offense when done by 
> the other side.
> 
> Are Reid, Daschle, & Gephardt less "corrupt" than their policial 
> counterparts simply becauyse they took less money?  I don't think so.  If 
> you do, that's your choice... but I equate them equally.  Republicans got 
> more money because they have more power.  The market dictates the 
> prices...that's all.  <<

I'll have to disagree with this.  I don't think that people are taking bribes 
from Abramoff simply because they're in power.  I think they're bad people.  
Lots of _good_ people in power don't take bribes.  I think that by saying 
that, you're absolving them of responsibility, like they didn't have any 
choice _but_ to take bribes.

>> These weren't sideline players in the Dem party.  The 
> examples cited were the current and former Dem leaders of the house and 
> Senate, as well as the current presumptive Presidential nominee (Clinton). <<

Whoa, Nellie.  She's not _my_ current presumptive Presidential nominee.

>> I go back to my original comment... Dems are no better or worse than the 
> GOP.  When I say this I am speaking of their behavior in power.  There is 
> nothing about being a Dem or a Rep that makes one inherently a better 
> person.  Does anyone here really think that they are a better person than 
> someone because of how they interpret (usually one or two) political 
> issues? <<

We'll have to agree to disagree.  I think that people who believe in 
Democratic ideals - most of the country, by any poll you can name - are in 
general more in line with the ideals of a civilized, kind humanity.  But even 
aside from the general ideals issue, I think that the current crop of 
Republican representatives, and the folks in the administration, are by and 
large a corrupt and deceitful lot, just not good people.

>> I would really like to see both parties start talking about issues rather 
> than demonizing each other.  <<

I know you feel this way - you say it a lot - but I'm not sitting here with a 
sports team mentality, just hating people because they're wearing the 
Republican colors.  I dislike what these people are doing.  I dislike what 
these people stand for.  I dislike what they've done to this country and its 
people.  If you mean "demonize" as a way of saying that our feelings aren't 
based on anything happening in reality, but rather just a sports team 
mentality, then I'll respectfully have to disagree with you.

Amy
                                                                               
                             
--- SBBSecho 2.11-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)