0
   

The continued reference to Mary Cheney by the Dems

 
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Feb, 2005 01:20 pm
"Interracial sex"? As if its a bad thing?

Thats an interesting comment of Coulter, in the context of some of the stuff that was said in this thread ...

And Salon is "anti-American"?

Curiouser and curiouser ...
0 Replies
 
Dookiestix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Feb, 2005 01:25 pm
If you don't kiss Bush's arse and bow down to the king of idiocy, then you are anti-American.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Feb, 2005 02:46 pm
FreeDuck wrote:
I heard that remark by her last night. It made me laugh because she was basically in a free fall and by the time she was done with that line she had managed to say that professors get laid by girls who don't like men. That's a feat in and of itself. I don't know why anyone takes her remarks as seriously informed opinion.


Someone DOES?????!!!! Shocked Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Feb, 2005 06:56 pm
Here's a cute little bit...

Quote:
MONTREAL (CP) - Canadians can decide the issue of same-sex marriage for themselves and don't need help from other countries, a coalition of same-sex marriage advocates said Tuesday.
Right-wing Christian Americans have been telephoning MPs to tell them how to vote on the proposed Civil Marriage Act. One Ontario MP has said she has received 30 calls from Americans in the last 10 days.

Evangeline Caldwell, co-ordinator of the Quebec Coalition for Same-Sex Civil Marriage, said at a news conference that Canadian opponents of the bill are already effectively stating their case.

"It's not that people from other nations can't say something, but arriving with the cavalry is little bit unnecessary," she said. "We can take care of our own debate and we are doing so."

The news conference focused on lobbying efforts targeting Quebec MPs to get their support for the proposed law. No date has been set yet for MPs to vote on the legislation.
© The Canadian Press, 2005
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Feb, 2005 07:08 pm
Guess it's time to get busy.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Feb, 2005 07:14 pm
Well, one can imagine how acutely concerned an MP's secretary might be to receive a phone call regarding how that MP ought to vote when the call shows up as from Lubbock, Texas.

There's no threat in these calls, but it does pose the interesting question of just what the heck these folks think they might be achieving.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Feb, 2005 07:42 pm
I dunno. I don't support fundamentalist Christians operating in that manner as it makes them look like utter idiots. But then what moves some of you Canadians to presume to tell USA Americans how we should vote or how we should be running our country?
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Feb, 2005 07:48 pm
hmmmmm, I don't recall calling any Americans telling them how to vote. Musta been someone else.
0 Replies
 
Dookiestix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Feb, 2005 07:58 pm
USA Americans?

And wasn't it Diebold and voter intimidation that was telling Americans how to vote?
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Feb, 2005 08:02 pm
I knew you'd post that question. Wudda bet on it. It's a fair question, but the answer is really simple.

America's influence on the whole world is immense. Folks from everywhere have opinions on US policy, because so many are effected by those policies, often adversely. But if you were to poll the citizens of Spain or the Maldives on Canadian policy, most would likely say "What? Who?" The party in charge in the US, and its ideology, and its actions are of acute importance to much of the world.

But there's another reason too, at least in my case. I don't think freedom and liberty are easy to come by. And I think they are more easily lost than we assume. I mentioned to you earlier that Lincoln held the danger to Americans' own liberty would not come from an external threat, but from the US doing that to itself. I think you are in that precise danger right now, and it is why the politics of division (most clearly evident in what Rove is doing with the gay issue, and with the derogation of 'liberal', or the sliming of Max Cleland, or the 'your with us or against us', etc) is so terribly harmful. And America is such a great place in so many ways, with a culture which has produced golden age levels of achievement across the boards. It has been a symbol of freedom and of liberty to the world, but what it symbolizes to the world has now changed, and changed very much for the worse.
0 Replies
 
Dookiestix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Feb, 2005 10:24 pm
Quote:
But then what moves some of you Canadians to presume to tell USA Americans how we should vote or how we should be running our country?


Perhaps it's because the most powerful country in the world can do whatever the hell it wants, including invading other sovereign countries for bogus reasons to secure OIL. That and the fact that it's currently being run by lunatics.

I'd want a say. We all still live on only one planet.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Feb, 2005 10:54 pm
Quote:
But then what moves some of you Canadians to presume to tell USA Americans how we should vote or how we should be running our country?


Tell us that about not commenting on how you run your country when you aren't invading others' - or placing sanctions on 'em - or funding others to fight 'em.

In reality, we ALL comment on how others run their countries. You right folk tell others how they should behave constantly, too.


What is the drama?

Only ACTUAL intererence - like governments commenting - like if the US President told Australians how to vote - oh...lordy, I forgot - he DID! - anyhoo only if one government tries to affect the vote in another country and such is there a problem. (ut, of course, this ahppens all the time, but usually indirectly) Meanwhile, we all bump our gums together here - and who is harmed? is it not a little hypesensitive and politically correct to carry on so? (Lol!)
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Feb, 2005 11:09 pm
But you see, if the USA is seen as a valid target for criticism, then one should not be surprised when people from the USA (or anywhere else) also feel moved to give you constructive advice. Smile
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Feb, 2005 11:50 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
I dunno. I don't support fundamentalist Christians operating in that manner as it makes them look like utter idiots. But then what moves some of you Canadians to presume to tell USA Americans how we should vote or how we should be running our country?
How is this "carrying on so", hypersensitive or PC? Someone's trying way too hard to share those titles.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Feb, 2005 11:53 pm
Well nobody ever accused me of being politically correct. So I will proudly accept accusation of being thoroughly un-PC Smile
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Feb, 2005 02:52 am
blatham, quoting The Canadian Press wrote:
Right-wing Christian Americans have been telephoning MPs to tell them how to vote on the proposed Civil Marriage Act. One Ontario MP has said she has received 30 calls from Americans in the last 10 days.

Certainly those American conservatives were just playing a practical joke on Canada. After all, they've made people die in Iraq to bring democracy there. Surely they would never do anything to compromise the perfectly good democracy of their northern neighbor. No sense of humor, those Canajuns....
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Feb, 2005 03:29 am
Foxfyre wrote:
But you see, if the USA is seen as a valid target for criticism, then one should not be surprised when people from the USA (or anywhere else) also feel moved to give you constructive advice. Smile


You utterly missed the point Fox.

Indeed, why should anyone from one country not comment upon the policies and practices of another?

Sadly, some of you carry on about "un-americannness" when even your own people criticise. In fact, MOST of the anti-US-government stuff is posted by Americans.

Their comments will be subject to criticism - but, so what? What is the big deal?

Seems to me many of you from the US want to feel free to criticise others - but become agitated and huffy if you are criticised. So do some dumb Australians etc. It is natural enough but, in my view, utterly pathetic. Everyone needs to get over it.

Er - do you not support free speech? Why should the US be immune to criticism? You attract more notice cos you are big and pushy. What do you expect? we get it here, in our region for the same reason. Am I whining?

If the criticism is stupid and pathetic - like the ridiculous anti-French bigot threads and such - people will get panned. (Has anyone else noticed that generally, news about most foreign countries - except those the right is delighting in attacking - gets almost no attention? I used to post a lot in International News - I have stopped - only threads attacking the right's targets, or gloating about countries where the right sees victories, get any attention from any more than a tiny minority. Look at the tsunami threads, When did one of them REALLY take off? When somebody - quite misleadingly - posted that Indonesia had told the US to get their troops assisting tsunami victims out. (Indonesia had told ALL the NUMEROUS countries with troops involved in assisting with aid to get out - a fiat they later retracted) That bit of, effective, misinformation (many assumed, and hence reacted very punitively, that ONLTY the US had been told to get its troops out - I wonder how many actually knew how huge the effort was from many countries?) When the UN was attacked, that drew a lot of tsunami interest, too.

If the criticisms are valid - the chauvinists will whine and shriek regardless - but sensible folk will listen and consider.

Did I shriek and whinge when Lash attacked Australia's detention centres? Of course not. Those centres are a disgrace - good on you folk for squawking - go for it. If you attack Oz for its gun laws, or make other attacks I consider very ill-informed, I will defend it. But I won't carry on ridiculously cos my "sacred soil" - or whatever crap nonsense chauvinists carry on about has been attacked. You may notice that Msolga and I often post here in a manner very critical of Australian policies. - well, most of you never see it, cos lots of you don't give a damn about anywhere except America, unless the right in America is attacking a countery. C'est la vie. No point whining about that, either.

When people attack the US stupidly, and I see it, I often comment - just as I do in real life when people do the same. Here, I am seen as ridiculously pro-American.

We are here to comment on stuff - sensible and informed commenters go for it. Dumb and ill-informed ones, you deserve what you get - whether you are moaning about the US or France or Germany or the UN or Australia - or whatever.

It is a discussion and information exchange board for chrissake.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Feb, 2005 03:47 am
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
I dunno. I don't support fundamentalist Christians operating in that manner as it makes them look like utter idiots. But then what moves some of you Canadians to presume to tell USA Americans how we should vote or how we should be running our country?
How is this "carrying on so", hypersensitive or PC? Someone's trying way too hard to share those titles.[/


Hmmmm - and craven keeps telling me that Americans CAN appreciate irony....

Well, I know SOME of you can

And, irony aside, Fox's post DOES reflect what some of you so eagerly deride and crow about as "political correctness and hyper-sensitivity" - you just do not want to admit it.

Thing is - I call it no such thing - I call it a natural response that reason and thoughtful consideration ought be able to get us past.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Feb, 2005 04:48 am
Foxfyre wrote:
Well nobody ever accused me of being politically correct. So I will proudly accept accusation of being thoroughly un-PC Smile

You, Fox, are thoroughly PC (and have been called such here plenty of times).

There's a lot of "sshhh, they/you shouldn't say something like that - that's just wrong / improper / a disgrace" stuff around from the right here as well (no, thats not an actual quote). PC.

PC = in my definition: avoiding and trying to stop others from using language or undertaking actions that are considered harmful because of how they might possibly offend one ethnic/religious/national/gender/etc constituency or the other.

Conservatives who do it because they insist that the head of state should be described/addressed with proper respect or that the Christians in the country should not be demonised or discriminated against in all those awful jokes and rhetorical attacks or that the feelings of those poor vulnerable Christians should be spared from, you know, possibly coming across a gay couple in a cartoon or that foreigners have no right attacking poor America like that - all that fits just as easily under the definition as liberals being all outraged over a speaking Barbie doll or tut-tutting about the portrayal of blacks in gangsta rap videos or what not.

I prefer the term "tightarsism".
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Feb, 2005 08:27 am
dlowan wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
I dunno. I don't support fundamentalist Christians operating in that manner as it makes them look like utter idiots. But then what moves some of you Canadians to presume to tell USA Americans how we should vote or how we should be running our country?
How is this "carrying on so", hypersensitive or PC? Someone's trying way too hard to share those titles.


Hmmmm - and craven keeps telling me that Americans CAN appreciate irony....
Deb, the irony you speak of isn't in that post. She herself suggested the Christians looked like utter idiots... which should dispel any notion that the response is partisan, sensitive or any matter of concerned for political correctness.
dlowan wrote:
Well, I know SOME of you can

And, irony aside, Fox's post DOES reflect what some of you so eagerly deride and crow about as "political correctness and hyper-sensitivity" - you just do not want to admit it.
No, it doesn't. It suggests the Canadians are hypocrites if they think Americans have any less right comment on their politics than they do ours. There's nothing pc or hypersensitive about that. You may be able to pin that label on the Fox, but that post does ZERO to bolster your case.
dlowan wrote:
Thing is - I call it no such thing - I call it a natural response that reason and thoughtful consideration ought be able to get us past.
Perhaps that's why you have such a hard time identifying it. I don't claim to have the universal definition, but the example you quoted above isn't even on the same page.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 2.32 seconds on 01/06/2025 at 09:07:56