Text 3144, 208 rader
Skriven 2006-07-03 13:53:00 av Robert E Starr JR (3617.babylon5)
Ärende: Re: Atheists: America's m
=================================
* * * This message was from Josh Hill to rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.m * * *
         * * * and has been forwarded to you by Lord Time * * *         
            -----------------------------------------------             

@MSGID: <c2oga2lqdtatq831qh7qcubg06t52rgjci@4ax.com>
@REPLY: <tvk3a25e9g569kboqqafddt66al5vajr6k@4ax.com>
On Sun, 2 Jul 2006 12:36:03 -0500, "Carl" <cengman7@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>
>"Josh Hill" <usereplyto@gmail.com> wrote in message 
>news:rvnfa25c0kpbl1cq5h4nio9klid7u26u0i@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 1 Jul 2006 22:00:55 -0500, "Carl" <cengman7@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Snip about Dean.  I have quotes where he uses the terms racist, 
>>>homophobic,
>>>book burning sexists. Not really important.
>>
>> Seems to me it's not important to the extent that it's true. And in
>> many cases, it certainly is, e.g., the gay marriage amendment is an
>> obvious attempt to capitalize on homophobia.
>
>You're interpretation...and I don't think it's accurate (and I don't agree 
>with their stand).
>However, you keep stating these views over and over as if your 
>interpretation of their view is fact, so it seems unlikely that they would 
>ever get a fair hearing from you.

No. There is no conceivable justification for a gay marriage
amendment. It addresses no threat. Gay marriage does not by any
stretch of the imagination threaten heterosexual marriage. There is
not even much of a threat that we're going to see legal gay marriage
soon, given that it was rejected in every state in which it was
proposed. And when we do eventually see it, as we will, it will be
because a younger and less homophobic generation has grown up and
taken its opinions with it: the surveys bare this out. And they will
be doing what they want.

And most of the legislators who are proposing it know that. In most
cases demagoguery of the first order: Terri Schiavo-style,
flag-burning-amendment-style demagoguery. And if a handful actually
believe they're in the service of the Almighty Lord, well, then, in
their case it's just plain homophobia, rather than a desire to
capitalize on homophobia. Is waving axe handles because you believe
niggers shouldn't be allowed in school worse than  waving axe handles
because your constituents believe that niggers shouldn't be allowed in
school?

So yeah, Dean was justified in saying what he said. It is what we
think: it's just that he had the honesty to say it.

>>>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.
>>
>> It seems to me justified.
>
>That you sit in judgement in such a manner makles you different from Anne 
>Coulter how?

Dude, please. That's ludicrous. I'm pretty smart and I'm pretty honest
and I don't set out to lie or defame or hurt or smear people and I go
out of my way to be objective rather than knee jerk and partisan and
demagogic and self-serving. In every regard save my interest in
politics and my fondness for writing I am the anti-Coulter. Inasmuch
as you smeared me by comparing me to her, I could make a better case
that /you're/ like Anne Coulter.

If you want my reaction to a liberal who used unfair tactics to attack
the opposition, do a search and see what I had to say about Fahrenheit
9/11. The name of the thread was, IIRC, "Gekko was right." I react
rather violently to smears.

>> I assume that he isn't talking about the rank and file, or about every 
>> single
>> Republican legislator.
>
>He made no such distinction...either then or when he said that he hates 
>Republicans.

But I've little doubt that's what he meant. The meaning of party
labels is strongly contextual, something I've noticed that Republicans
habitually miss (and in that context, I'm referring to the rank and
file).

>> But right
>> now, the Republican powers-that-be are so corrupt and corrupted -- so
>> in the pay of business, so cruel to the little guy, so manipulative of
>> the middle class, so partial to the rich and powerful, so bellicose,
>> and so given to dirty tricks and below-the-belt attacks -- that it's a
>> pretty apt description.
>
>In your not-at-all unbiased opinion....and again you ignore the corrupt Dems 
>that are also manipulated by lawyers and unions, etc.

Once again, you fail to grasp the quantitative aspect, or who they're
working for. There is not -- I repeat not -- moral equivalency between
a charitable organization or a labor union and the Tobacco Council.
There is not equivalency of influence and money. And while unions can
be self-serving and lawyers can certainly be self-serving, and for
that matter business can be right, there is just no comparison between
the degree of negative influence those groups have on our national
affairs than that of the corrupting influences that currently dominate
the Republican Party.

The problem, Carl, here and elsewhere, is that you don't take into
account these differing degrees of influence. And that means you fall
prey to the basic Republican smear technique (can you guess whether
I'm talking about the rank and file or the political machine?) of
making much of the speck of dust in the other guy's eye to distract
attention from the board in your own.

>There's really no point in having this discussion again.  I do not think you 
>would accept any information that would ever convnce you that your 
>interpretation is even slightly unfair.

Carl, I posted here a list of the Democrats and Republicans under
investigations. You're right, there's no point if you refuse to ignore
overwhelming evidence when it's right in front of your eyes.

>> I do find it interesting that many rank-and-file Republicans identify
>> with their leadership and so think that Dems are attacking them. We
>> aren't.
>
>But the Dems don't qualify their words with a specific person, they say 
>"Republicans" as an all inclusive term.  Much like when they say "the 
>religious right" in a way that is taken to mean anyone with a faith that 
>votes Republican.
>
>It's a pity that Dems never even stop to consider that anyone else might 
>have a reason for their beliefs.  It *seems* that Dems assume that anyone 
>that doesn't agree with them is evil and discounted.

Again, you're making the common mistake of misunderstanding the
context. It occurs to me that this may come about because members of
the Republican rank-and-file believe their party is representative of
their views, while we Democrats know that it's run by a machine that
manipulates the rank-and-file for its own ends. That being the case,
it seems to me that we Democrats should take pains to refer to the
Republican machine; beyond that, I don't know what we can do, because
the Republican rank and file did after all vote for Dubya, and we
can't very well fail to criticize him because it would upset those who
made a mistake.

>Calling someone "evil" is every bit as judgemental, mean spirited, and vile 
>as Anne Coulter is.

Not if they are evil. I can call Hitler evil, I can call Bin Laden
evil, and that doesn't make me Anne Coulter.

>> We see them as having had the wool pulled over their eyes by
>> people who are selfish, greedy, evil, and manipulative.
>
>And never seem to consider that your views may be wrong.

Dude, I'm 51 years old. I remember Nixon. I remember the Reagan
Administration natural resources giveaway. I remember the
Gringrichites inviting lobbyists onto the floor of Congress to write
legislation. I remember Bob Dole flying around in the Philip Morris
company plane. I remember the ashtray they had with a picture of the
surgeon general taped to it. I remember Republicans voting against
every kind of finance reform, and the Republican leadership blocking
it even further. I remember the Republican drug plan that bars elderly
people from buying drugs more cheaply in Canada. I remember the White
House refusing to intervene when the energy companies were stealing
the people of California blind, and the bastards on the Enron tapes
chortling at the thought that Bush would become president, and that
the head of Enron was Bush's largest campaign contributor. I remember
the dirty tricks against Bill Clinton and the massive barrage of
accusations, virtually none of which turned out to be true. I remember
the dishonest campaign to convince the people that Al Gore was a liar.
I remember the Swift Boating of John Kerry, and the revelation of the
illegal connection with the White House. I remember the Republicans
busing in goons to disrupt the recount in Dade County. I remember
George Bush claiming that he would put a cap on carbon emissions, then
refusing to do so when he was elected. I remember George Bush saying
that he would fire anybody who had disclosed Valerie Plame Wilson's
name and then refusing to fire Rove. I remember Bush mounting a phony
poll to convince the voters of North Caroline that John McCain's
adopted child was illegitimate and black. I could go on for hours.
Unfortunately, I could go on for hours.

So no, my views aren't wrong. Your party has become a cesspool.

-- 
Josh

"I love it when I'm around the country club, and I hear people talking about
the debilitating
effects of a welfare society. At the same time, they leave their kids a
lifetime and beyond
of food stamps. Instead of having a welfare officer, they have a trust officer.
And instead
of food stamps, they have stocks and bonds."

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