Text 3128, 193 rader
Skriven 2006-07-02 12:03:00 av Robert E Starr JR (3601.babylon5)
Ärende: Re: Atheists: America's m
=================================
* * * This message was from Carl to rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.m * * *
* * * and has been forwarded to you by Lord Time * * *
-----------------------------------------------
@MSGID: <jvKdnZ88s8t0qzrZnZ2dnUVZ_qGdnZ2d@comcast.com>
@REPLY: <qv3p82l5efiuo3tnh9t68sh5udanal89f4@4ax.com>
"Amy Guskin" <aisling@fjordstone.com> wrote in message
news:0001HW.C0CC9FEA04E5C5E0F0407530@news.verizon.net...
>>> 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... :-)
>
>>> 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.
Snip about Dean. I have quotes where he uses the terms racist, homophobic,
book burning sexists. Not really important. He's called Republicans "evil."
"This is a struggle of good and evil. And we're [democrats] the good."
"Evil" is a particularly disgusting word to use. It goes beyond methodology
and says that Republicans are trying to intentionally hurt people. That (to
me) goes far beyond the kind of rhetoric that I personally find acceptable,
and equate that kind of hatred with Coulter.
> 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?
Coulter goes way out of her way to say that stuff to sell books and generate
publicity. It's gotten her on television shows, including the Tonight Show.
Dean has to muzzle his (admitted) hatred because of his position... but his
comments show the same level of hatred for the other side.
For the record...I can't stand Coulter either. I would not know how to even
begin to create a thought process in which I could try to defend her.
>>> 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.
The fact that you didn't know about Pelosi suggests that either you weren't
looking for misdeeds of Democrats with an equal zeal as you do of
Republicans, or that the media that you pay attention to doesn't cover it
with equal zeal. I did post a link elsewhere on the story. I believe fines
were already imposed.
>>> 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.
I guess I didn't explain myself very well. My point was that the amount of
money in the bribes (which Josh poointed out was higher for Republicans) was
because the Republicans are in power and that power commands a higher price
on the "bribery market." I was trying to say that the amount of money
wasn't important....whether you are bribed cheap of top dollar males no
difference...I consider you equally wrong. Contrary to Josh's implication
that the Democrats being bribed wasn't as bad because the Republicans got
more.
>
>>> 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 was speaking of most of the press and polls. I wasn't assuming your
preference. :)
I hope you know that I would never presume to speak for you. :)
>
>>> 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.
Hmmm. I'm tempted to take this one up too, but I thnk it best not to.
I will simply say that I think you mistake a difference in methodology with
a difference of intent. To the degree that you believe a common message the
Republicans (or Independents :)) don't care about people, then you've bought
into a smear campaign as big as those on the right.
Very few people think of their views as evil or bad. When people
understand that, they will stop villiying other people. That was not
directed at you. :)
> 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.
Leaving aside the bribery and corruption on both sides...
You think Republicans don't love their children, kick their dogs and
collectively worship satan?
>>> 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
(Note to self...sounding like a broken record...time to shut up).
You're right. I'm going to stop now. It's time for me to just listen to
what others think.
Thanks Amy.
Carl
--- SBBSecho 2.11-Win32
* Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)
|