Can you believe what this idiot GOP Sen. said?

How much oil do the Sudanese have?

0 Replies

Quote:

Quote:
Other employees were variously referred to as "Paki," "Frog," "Polack," "Wop," "Spic," "wet-back," "square-head," "towel-head" and "pull-start" [the latter three terms ostensibly in reference to individuals who wore turbans].

The interesting thing here, well actually it's not all that interesting, but I thought it proved a point, that all those characterizations refer to members of the Caucasian race : Pakistanis, French, Polish, Italians, Mexicans or Hispanics, Scandinavians and Arabs and therefore, according to mporter's theory of racial slurs, cannot be considered racist unless they were being spoken by someone like Connie Chung or someone else not of the Caucasian race.

I am still willing to test this premise using mporter as a guide. When shall we gather in the park to see if mporter's view of what is racist is real or merely the strained, sliced and diced, parsing of words?

Btw: mporter writes of me:

Quote:

Of course, you are free to insult Senator Inhof (sic) but I really don't believe that you know him or have even met him.

Good, hold onto that belief, it tells me you haven't a clue as to who I am, but hear this, if you ever again call into question my veracity I will show up on your front porch, maybe with the Iraqi National Soccer Team, maybe with a bunch of those boys from down at the Rodeo bar, or worse, by myself. Laughing

Joe

0 Replies

Gee, Mr. Joe Nation. You are very testy about your veracity. In a way, I am delighted. I am also testy about my veracity. When the Canadian, Mr. Blatham, said on May14th after I had written a quote from Time Magazine about a Montreal Police Strike---"Well, since you reference a Time issue which apparently does not exist", I laid into him.

Mr. Blatham, however, is one of the types who is apparently very very insecure and cannot bring himself to apologize since his self-esteem is probably nil, however, I will take your word for it, If you say you know Senator Inhofe, I believe you.

And I apologize.

Nonetheless, my original thesis still stands. You call Senator Inhofe a "dumbass".

That is your opinion. You may have reasons for reaching that opinion. However, it is not possible for Senator Inhofe to be classified as A Moron or, a fortiori. am idiot, since if he were truly classified as a Moron or an Idiot, he would not be able to read or write.

You are not going to tell me that the Senator can't read or write, are you?

Now, as far as you coming to my porch with the Iraqi Soccer team. That would not be a good idea.

My neighbor is an Iraqi who was a good friend of Uday's. I understand that Uday regularly had soccer team members whipped and tortured if they made a bad pass in a soccer game.

Members of the team might not be happy to meet my neighbor.

He does not, however, wear a towel on his head.
He wears a Borsalino.

0 Replies

I think, Mr. Joe Nation, that you would be interested in hearing of another person who is not called a "racist" since she is an African-American who said on PBS on Nov. 4 1994 concerning Justice Clarence Thomas that:

quote

"The man is on the Court. You know, I hope his wife feeds him lots of eggs and butter and he dies early like many black men do, of heart disease. Well, that's how I feel. he is an absolutely reprehensible person"

A vicious intolerant attack!!!

Malveaux fears Justice Thomas because of his belief that the Constitution must be respected.

The left wing, to the best of my knowledge, let Malveaux's disgusting statement stand.

Viewing "towelhead" in perspective of Malveaux's comment, it appears almost benign.

0 Replies

Mporter:

There are numerous attacks from either side, and the tiny middle, that go unchallenged. Part of the reason is politics is played, at least in this country, rather viciously.

I think our salvation will come when members from both sides start speaking from truth rather than from some preconceived notions. I think Inhofe was upset, as are many Americans, and embarrassed, as are many Americans, by the recent revelations and he spoke from his heart. That doesn't mean that I think he made much sense, he didn't, but I understand his frustration.

Q: What did you think about John McCain's reaction to what the Senator from Oklahoma said? Do you think John McCain has a different view of how we should regard prisoners of war?

Joe (you don't have to call me Mr.) Nation

0 Replies

mporter wrote:

And, Finn, you realize, of course, that if George Bush is re-elected in November, only the extreme left wing crazies will criticize any so called "abuses" on the level at which we find them now.

The "abuse" crowd is a partisan crowd who, I am convinced, do not suffer because the Iraqis are being mistreated or they would have raised a much much louder cry about the hundreds of thousands murdered and tortured in the Sudan.

The "outrage" over Abu Ghraib is fueled, in the main, by a partisan crowd and a biased press. I'm afraid, though, that I can't be certain that the same outrage, under a Democratic president, would not be fueled by a partisan crowd of the opposite persuasion and a sensationalist press.

When it comes to presidents, I think the press gives them, essentially, even treatment. The motivation is different but the results are about the same. When there is a Democrat in the White House, the press goes after him like a dog on red meat , because that is their nature. They're not happy about it, but they have mouths to feed, ladders to climb, and ratings to garner.

When a Republican is president, the press really gets to enjoy their job. They still get all of the material gains associated with a job "well done," but they also get the satisfaction of fighting against the Bad Guys. If their pens are just a bit sharper when writing about a Republican president, that's to be expected from a group that is overwhelmingly liberal and (depite their sanctimonious protestations to the contrary) about as impartial as the rest of the population.

I do think the Republican party, in general, might be more reserved than their friends on the other side of the aisle if Iraq was a Democrat's war, but based on the antics of some GOPers during Clinton's presidency (Tom Delay for one), I'm afraid we'd see inappropriate criticism coming from them as well.

It's in forums like this where the distinction between reactions would be drawn.

0 Replies

finn said

Quote:

I accept the argument that we should hold ourselves to higher standards than the Saddams of the world, and the fact that our troops engaged in some of these acts is disheartening, but describing the abuse in Abu Ghraib as atrocities is well over the top. American soldiers, sad to say, have been involved in atrocities. My Lai was an atrocity, Abu Ghraib was not. And whether or not it was, it is being too readily ignored that we have, as we did with My Lai, acknowledged it and are taking steps to punish the guilty. It is somewhat ironic that those who are screaming for the blood of Generals, Cabinet members and the president without a full investigation and trial, are so concerned about these same rights for the detainees in Gitmo and Iraq.

I don't think the use of 'atrocity' (or even, in the worst of it, 'torture'...after all, deaths have resulted) is inappropriate at all. If I were the victim, I would certainly consider many of these acts torture. And of course, simply because My Lai was worse doesn't mean the word doesn't apply in both cases.

There's no irony in calls for, say, rumsfeld's removal. Appointed political leaders do not have same sorts of rights as do those placed in detention by the state. Certainly it would be more rational to continue with a deep and complete investigation, but that is as much an issue of investigating systemic issues as personal issues. Different all around.

As to your claim that the American press is overwhelmingly liberal...that gets big chortles from folks living outside of the US. Even in the limited context of America, the claim, though oft repeated, doesn't bare much scrutiny. However, I would go as far as to say that both the rooster and the nightowl can be forgiven for arguing whether it is really the evening star or the morning star which is the more pretty.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

I don't think the use of 'atrocity' (or even, in the worst of it, 'torture'...after all, deaths have resulted) is inappropriate at all. If I were the victim, I would certainly consider many of these acts torture. And of course, simply because My Lai was worse doesn't mean the word doesn't apply in both cases.

As was expected, you focused on my dispute with the term "atrocity," and ignored the foundation of my argument, expressed as: "And whether or not it was (an atrocity), it is being too readily ignored that we have, as we did with My Lai, acknowledged it and are taking steps to punish the guilty."

[/quote="blatham"]There's no irony in calls for, say, rumsfeld's removal. Appointed political leaders do not have same sorts of rights as do those placed in detention by the state. Certainly it would be more rational to continue with a deep and complete investigation, but that is as much an issue of investigating systemic issues as personal issues. Different all around.[/quote]

Why am I not surprised that the irony escapes you? Fair is fair isn't it? Whether the extent of Rumsfeld's right to due process, in terms of maintaining his job, even approaches the rights of a detainee (let alone an indicted US citizen), doesn't basic fairness (and by your own admission rationality) require there to be some evidence that Rumsfeld was directly responsible for Abu Ghraib before insisting that he be fired (or prosecuted, as many have called for)?

[/quote="blatham"]As to your claim that the American press is overwhelmingly liberal...that gets big chortles from folks living outside of the US. Even in the limited context of America, the claim, though oft repeated, doesn't bare much scrutiny. However, I would go as far as to say that both the rooster and the nightowl can be forgiven for arguing whether it is really the evening star or the morning star which is the more pretty.[/quote]

That anyone living outside of the US would consider themselves expert enough about our politics and press to chortle over my contention, gets big guffaws from this quarter.

I know, I know, our Neighbors To The North are so much more literate than us poor dumb Yanks, and certainly are not viewing America with any bias of their own. Why can't I just accept their judgments on all that is American? Stubborn jingoism I guess.

0 Replies

I don't think there's much doubt about Rumsfeld's involvement in the prisoner treatment plan, nor will Gen Miller be able to slide around the many questions arising from the SAP. (See the writings of Sy Hersh in the New Yorker).

When you have Sen Warner asking tougher questions than his Democratic colleagues you're pretty much sure that the prison scandal is not going away soon.

My predication is that Rumsfeld will stay, first, because he is too important to the President to be sacrificed and second, because the various questioners recognize that it would be Paul Wolfowitz who would replace him and nobody, NObody, wants that.

My hope is that Rumsfeld will become the anchor that pulls GW Bush under in the fall election. (Last year I was saying it would be Ashcroft or the boys over at the Homeland Security, but those guys have ducked down and started trying to do their job instead of continuing to politically posture.)

The weirdest part of tonight's speech was the comment about 'building a new maximum security prison and, with the permission of the Iraqi's, tear down Abu Ghraib as a symbol of Iraq's new beginning.' (paraphrase)

So America will have the Liberty Bell, Iraq will have the vacant lot where the prison used to be.... hey, maybe that's not so bad, it's worked for the French for over two hundred years.

Joe

0 Replies

Finn- I think Mr. Blatham can be accused of being "tone deaf" with regards to facts.

Several times, I have noted that he cannot be serious about the American media. I am sure that either the New York Times or the Washington Post never get the Vancouver or Mr. Blatham does not choose to read either paper.

Here are a few things that Mr. Blatham has not bothered to refute: since he has not done so, my argument stands.

l. The New York Times and the Washington Post are the most influential newspapers in the USA.

2. Most newspapers in the country regularly utilize stories from the New York Times. I am sure that Mr. Blatham does not realize that the New York Times is known as "the paper of record"
Some newspapers use stories from the Washington Post.

3. Perhaps Mr. Blatham can provide some evidence or documentation that the two most important and influential newspapers in the USA provide material, news stories and editorial comment that is CONSERVATIVE. If he can, I will admit I am wrong.

He can't. All he can do is to mouth useless generalizations.

I am sure that Mr. Blatham also thinks that the three major news casters on the big three, Jennings, Brokaw and Rather are also conservative.

I would invite Mr. Blatham to prove that also.

On another thread, I indicated that CNN, one of the major cable outlets,had been headed by a man who was, during Clinton's tenure, invited to stay in the Lincoln bedroom in the White House.
Mr. Blatham did not think this fact was important. It just goes to show how ignorant a particular Canadian is about American politics and about Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton would never invite a conservative to stay in the Lincoln bedroom.

Maybe, Finn, Mr. Blatham thinks that Judy Woodruff is a conservative!!!!

That would be akin to calling Rush Limbaugh a liberal.

The most amazing feature of this whole discussion, Finn, is that Mr. Blatham, I am sure, knows nothing, nothing, about local politics. I am sure that he knows nothing about the five Southern states which are losing Democratic Senators.
I am sure that he knows nothing about the Texas legislature redistricting the boundaries for the coming Federal Elections with regard to The Federal House of Representatives. I am sure that Mr. Blatham knows nothing about the importance of the South in the coming election. I am sure that Mr. Blatham knows nothing about the grass roots organization of the Republican Party on the state level.

Maybe it's because he is like the former PM in Canada, Prime Minister Cretin.

0 Replies

This is an old red herring, really ought to be fossilized by now, this idea that the media is liberal. It is a conservative joke told in broad strokes and at every opportunity by Newt Gringrich and others. When asked about it now, they grin at the silliness of anyone and everyone who ever believed it.

Or believes it still, considering the playing fields. Asking about the political credentials of the old big three -CBS, NBC and ABC - news anchors is a little old fashioned in the light, no, the glare, of the cable news networks. Perhaps one ought to tally the number of airtime minutes consumed by all of those news anchors combined compared to the ones filled by CNN and Fox News Network's newscasters and pundits. It is after all, as any advertising student will tell you, the number of times one hears a message that makes it stay with you. Hours and hours of conservative commentary does wear on a body after awhile and throws off one's perspective entirely, but like all brain-washing techniques makes the washed feel comfortable and a lot better about themselves.

If you can watch an hour of Fox cable news without flinching, it's probably because you were in their mindset before you sat down.

Is there any question that talk radio is a conservative bastion? No? Good, because I didn't want to go over that ground again.

As to newspapers, the most widely distributed one in the USA is-----
USTODAY ---- not known for it's liberal views or ownership, and known to shade a story to fit. They actually seem proud of that activity.

The New York Times, the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times (hey, how come nobody talks about the LAtimes?? They just swept the Pulitzers, what's it take to get some eyes around here? Never mind.) have several things in common: they have a less than conservative viewpoint on the masthead editorials, they publish columnists with conservative bents on their opposite page alongside their more liberal counterparts and they try get the facts of any news story right as opposed to having it fit some political notion. (Which is probably why other papers use their stories, editors are usually fixated on facts not notions.) All three sound and look like newspapers to me. As to their influence of the political world, they, like all others in the shrinking newspaper business, have less and less impact as each year passes.

Political thought in this country is being driven by the cable news networks and talk radio, I don't there's much question about that, but the pundits continue to be confounded by an American public who refuse to join in lockstep just because Sean Hannity or Bill O'Reilly squint out at the camera and spout more lemonade.

Truth, no matter how much it's weighed down, will float up into the sunshine and embarrass those who tried to drown her.

Joe

0 Replies

Well stated, Joe.

0 Replies

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

blatham wrote:

I don't think the use of 'atrocity' (or even, in the worst of it, 'torture'...after all, deaths have resulted) is inappropriate at all. If I were the victim, I would certainly consider many of these acts torture. And of course, simply because My Lai was worse doesn't mean the word doesn't apply in both cases.

As was expected, you focused on my dispute with the term "atrocity," and ignored the foundation of my argument, expressed as: "And whether or not it was (an atrocity), it is being too readily ignored that we have, as we did with My Lai, acknowledged it and are taking steps to punish the guilty." Always pleased to oblige you. I know folks commonly don't treat you right. But language is important, and euphemisms too plentiful in the world of war. It's a necessary focus of attention. There was no purposive avoidance of the other issue, it's a good issue. We'll see as time goes on just how complete and dedicated are the steps being taken to sort out the who and why.

[/quote="blatham"]There's no irony in calls for, say, rumsfeld's removal. Appointed political leaders do not have same sorts of rights as do those placed in detention by the state. Certainly it would be more rational to continue with a deep and complete investigation, but that is as much an issue of investigating systemic issues as personal issues. Different all around.

Why am I not surprised that the irony escapes you? Fair is fair isn't it? Whether the extent of Rumsfeld's right to due process, in terms of maintaining his job, even approaches the rights of a detainee (let alone an indicted US citizen), doesn't basic fairness (and by your own admission rationality) require there to be some evidence that Rumsfeld was directly responsible for Abu Ghraib before insisting that he be fired (or prosecuted, as many have called for)? The fairness point was understood by me, thus the use of 'rational' you noted. Whether 'direct responsibility' for Abu Ghraib etc is the criterion for recommending Rumsfeld be let go is highly questionable and, I think, quite insufficient. Still, as I said, we'll see what we'll see. I'll note that a Brit paper today has written that Rumsfeld has now banned all cameras and cel phones with cameras from soldiers in the Iraq theatre. That's pretty clearly an indication that the fellow is rather more interested in presentation and information control than he is in keeping citizens really informed as to the true states of affairs.

[/quote="blatham"]As to your claim that the American press is overwhelmingly liberal...that gets big chortles from folks living outside of the US. Even in the limited context of America, the claim, though oft repeated, doesn't bare much scrutiny. However, I would go as far as to say that both the rooster and the nightowl can be forgiven for arguing whether it is really the evening star or the morning star which is the more pretty.[/quote]

That anyone living outside of the US would consider themselves expert enough about our politics and press to chortle over my contention, gets big guffaws from this quarter. Very many people outside of the US are indeed expert on US politics and press. Dropping down from 'expert' to 'quite familiar', that is the case far moreso, on average, than is the converse. Your take on the Belgian or Australian press, please?

I know, I know, our Neighbors To The North are so much more literate than us poor dumb Yanks, and certainly are not viewing America with any bias of their own. Why can't I just accept their judgments on all that is American? Stubborn jingoism I guess. Canadians are no more literate than Yanks. And, sure, bias is present in all viewers. And, you don't have to accept a Canadian's judgement on your nation's policies or on other observations about your complex country. But, on the other hand, why not attend to the viewpoints from outside? That would seem to be intellectually prudent, if personally uncomfortable sometimes. Not doing so has the disadvantage of all the possible consequences of hubris. But perhaps most immediately, critical commentary on America is an inevitability wherever and whenever America's rhetoric and policies and actions reflect assumptions of unique and superior moral attributes. The price you pay for accepting such self-definition as would permit the degree of demand for untempered unilateralism is the price which is now being exacted. [/quote]

0 Replies

That l-word network gave Ben Stein a chance to tell the world Sunday that we can do what we want because we are the good guys.

0 Replies

Please, Joe Nation, airtime is not the touchstone. It is the number of people watching.

In July 2001, 43 % of the American people were watching Dan or Peter or Tom

Source- Bias by Bernard Goldberg- P. 188

0 Replies

I am very much afraid that Joe Nation has been misinformed.

Below are the circulation numbers for leading American Magazines which concentrate on current events and Politics. As of the six month period ending last year.

Time- 4,112,311- A NOTORIOUSLY LIBERAL MAG.

Newsweek- 3,112, 407- Far more liberal than conservative

US News and World Report- 2.024,770- More conservative than liberal. It is clear that the liberal magazine circulation dwarfs the conservative viewpoint.

0 Replies

Joe Nation tells us that USA today is not liberal. I would like to see the reaction of Al Neuhart, its founder to that statement. If USA Today has a leaning, it is definitely to the left.

0 Replies

Joe Nation tells us that

quote

"Political thought in this country is being driven by the cable news networks and talk radio."

That is a very interesting statement. However, I have never seen any proof to substantiate it.

Does Joe Nation have some hard data to show that, indeed, "political thought is being DRIVEN by the cable news networks and talk radio"

What does driven mean, exactly?

What are the cable news networks? Does that include CNN?

Which talk radio is involved? Do we include the mellifluous tones of the esteemed Al Franken in that assessment?

0 Replies

Mr. Blatham is concerned that "All cameras and cell phones with cameras are being banned so that soldiers may not use them in Iraq"

Oh, Lord, what authoritanism!!!!!

Mr, Blatham will also be displeased to know that Universities are considering the ban of camera phones because some students are utlilizing them to pass on the contents of tests to others outside the testing venue.

Will this authoritarian bootstep from the USA never cease?

But Mr. Blatham apparently does not realize that the Military plays under different rules- It's called Military Justice. We, however, unlike Canada have a first amendment that gives us freedom of speech.

Mr. Blatham excoriates Finn D' Abuzz when he says to Finn D' Abuzz- "Why not attend to the viewpoints from outside"

Perhaps Finn realizes that the viewpoints from a country like Canada does not quite fit our country which has a tradition of freedom of speech.

A recent Article in US News and World Report shows how badly Canada is faring in the freedom of speech catagory. Why, it reminds on of the brutal repressions of Secy. of Defense Donald Rumsfeld not allowing our soldiers to use cameras or camera phones.

Quote US news and world report- John Leo- April 19, 2004

"Canada is a pleasantly authoritarian country" Alan Borovoy, general counsel of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, said a few years ago. An example of what he means is Bill C-250, a repressive anti-free speech measure that is on the brink of becoming law in Canada. It would add "sexual orientation" to the Canadian hate propaganda law, thus making public criticism of homosexuality a crime. It is sometimes called the "Bible as hate literature " bill or simply, the chill bill"...Law Professor David Bernstein in his new book "You can't say that! wrote that it has apparently become illegal in Canada to advocate traditional Christian opposition to homosexual sex" Or traditional Jewish or Muslim opposition too...The Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission ruled that a newspaper ad listing biblical passages that oppose homosexuality was a human rights offense...In another case, a British Columbia court upheld the one month suspension of a high school teacher who wrote letters to a local paper arguing that homosexuality is not a fixed orientation but a condition that can and should be treated. The teacher, Chris Kempling, was not accused of discrimination, merely of expressing thoughts that the STATE DEFINES AS IMPROPER"

Perhaps.Finn D' Abuzz doesn't have hubris.Perhaps Finn D' Abuzz doesn't want input from a country that sounds, in its quashing of expression, like Nazi Germany.

0 Replies

Time is a liberal magazine? What other jokes do you know?

0 Replies

Can you believe what this idiot GOP Sen. said?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know