2
   

DEAD BROTHERS . . .

 
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Aug, 2003 09:06 am
Frank--
I went back to see if I'd missed some more ominous statement by McG, and I don't see one.

He's glad the brothers are dead; he said so; and got all manner of indignant insults. We're all free to speak our mind. He did; then many others spoke their opinion of him; and now, I'm speaking my opinion that McG's wasn't odd, and didn't deserve all the ridiculous over the top vitriol.

What I don't understand is why he couldn't just share his opinion without all the personal attacks. I think Au is right.
QUOTE--
Even though he goes at times a little overboard IMO he is entitled to express himself in any way he sees fit. At least that is what he should be able to do. I guess that is only true if you follow the thundering herd.


Responding to williamhenry's comment--

Those people who holler the loudest about "bad" reporting have only visited one television network and didn't like what they heard.

Your assertion is incorrect.
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Aug, 2003 08:35 pm
The U.S. of A. can rectify the wanting way in which it took out the brothers Hussein in their hunt for the senior. If they do finally corner him, they should take all precautions and take him alive, and bring him to justice. That would rectify much of the inanity and incompetence by which the Bush Admin. has, up to now, operated in Iraq.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Aug, 2003 08:45 pm
Sofia I'm rather tired of your defense of any behavior that you agree with under the mantra of speaking ones mind.

Some people take issue with something, and you take issue with the complaints about it under the notion that we are "all free to speak our minds".

First of all I will repeat again that there is no "free speech" on this site this is a privately owned and operated site and nobody here has ANY rights.

To repeat. Any visitor to this site has ZERO rights. Privately owned and operated sites are not "rights" they are privilidges. When you are a guest in someone's house you do not have the right to express yourself in any way you want.

You do not even have that right in a public area of the US. So please don't act like anyone here has an inalienable right here. They don't.

Furthermore a defense of McG's sophomoric posts should not include the "free speech" angle. There is no "free speech" here and beyond that it makes no sense, if your defense for McG is that he was speaking his mind please defend his assailants for speaking theirs.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Aug, 2003 08:51 pm
Au,

In case my post to sofia was not clear, no McG is not "entitled to express himself in any way he sees fit". Not here. Privately owned and operated and yada yada yada.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Aug, 2003 07:20 am
Craven
Although what he said as many of his utterances have a childish bent. In what way did they violate the rules set down by the a2k. I have seen a lot more rediculous and offensive statements made.
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Aug, 2003 07:26 am
um. okay....

We return now to a discussion of events and ideas: from this morning's MSNBC
Quote:
The U.S. civilian administrator for Iraq, L. Paul Bremer, has blamed attacks against Americans on four groups - loyalists of Saddam's Baath Party, the Fedayeen Saddam militia, members of the ousted and once-feared security forces and foreign terrorists.
U.S. officials increasingly have laid blame for the violence on foreign fighters, suggesting the guerrilla tactics now being used are similar to those employed by Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida organization and its Taliban allies in Afghanistan.


What I see hear is an attempt, once again, to connect the conflict in Iraq with al-Qaida where there isn't a connection. The US officials only have to mention the words guerrilla and al-Qaida in the same sentence. Voila, they are one and the same.

Joe Nation
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Aug, 2003 09:23 am
Au,

The comments certainly don't violate any rules. I am just obligated to say somethign every time someone asserts that anything here goes due to "free speech". Which has no legal application here. Everything most certainly does not go. ;-)
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Aug, 2003 09:43 am
I sincerely appreciate the users that have defended what I have said, and I understand Craven's attitude that it is his house, his rules.

I have tried to keep my conservative opinions generalized and have tried very hard to keep any insults generalized, unlike many members here. I have tried very hard not to sya "well so-an-so is obviously an ass because..." I have a very thick skin and I realize that everything said here pretty much stays right here. I take nothing said here personally and when I turn my computer off at the end of the day, I usually stop thinking about it.

It really bothers me to think that their are some people that don't however. So, if you find my posts offensive, childish, repugnent, whatever, I invite you to skip over them. I no longer feel the need to have my posts dissected by certain members and you can feel assured that my posts are not intended for you. They are intetended for those that desire to read them.

So, if in the furture, you read one of my posts and te first thing that comes to your mind is NOT the message that is written, but either the way it was written, or how it was spelled or punctuated, please, skip over it and go to the next message.

Thank you for your time.
0 Replies
 
williamhenry3
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Aug, 2003 10:08 am
McG<

Please don't take criticisms of your posts so personally. Your opinions are just that: opinions. I don't think the world would neither sink nor
swim without them.

The same can be said about every opinions, including mine, expressed here.

Lighten up.
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Aug, 2003 10:09 am
Thanks, McG. I think many of us have been doing just that.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Aug, 2003 10:14 am
McGentrix this has nothing to do with "my rules". Your posts were criticised on their merit (or rather lack thereof) and not because of any "rules". So don't blame "rules" for the fact that you were criticized. That makes no sense.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Aug, 2003 10:30 am
It's like the no smoking laws here -- you can eat, drink and be merry but you're not allowed to trample on someone else's personality or character using hubris as a weapon. It's difficult to call if there is some gentle ribbing and criticizing of someone's writing style. In other words, some who will put forth that everything they post is lucid judgement are not always very clear about what they mean to say. Pedestrian rhetoric is certainly a reason to just skip someone's post -- the poster probably can't help it and deserves our concern and pity.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Aug, 2003 10:35 am
Tartarin wrote:
Thanks, McG. I think many of us have been doing just that.


Unsuccessfully, apparently.
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Aug, 2003 08:25 pm
Craven--

All I said was that I didn't understand all the negativity in responses to McG's post. Surely didn't say others didn't have a right to criticise--nor did I say McG, or anyone else has a right to say whatever they pleased.

I just forwarded one more opinion.

Don't see why mine is more tiring than anyone else's.

McG--

Didn't mean to make you an issue. When I see behavior I don't understand, or don't agree with--sometimes, I bring it out for discussion. I don't think you, or anyone else should be 'set upon' for unpopular opinions. When it happens, I like to share my opinion of it. It's not meant to be personal.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Aug, 2003 08:56 pm
Everyone is just forwarding opinions, that's why it's a pointless turn of phrase. The people you criticize for "setting upon" McG were just "forwarding opinions".

When you "share your opinion" about how reactions to McG are unwarranted how is it different from "sharing the opinion" that McG's posts were not warranted?

Beyond the "right" issue was a qualm with the "leave him alone he was just sharing an opinion" line. It is meaningless because those who you criticize were also "just sharing their opinions" why not leave them alone too?

Using the "just an opinion" line makes everything moot.
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Aug, 2003 09:01 pm
Thanks, Sophia. It could have been me.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Aug, 2003 09:12 pm
Doubt it. And that's a good thing.
0 Replies
 
williamhenry3
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Aug, 2003 12:01 am
Does anyone here care to guess when the father of the brothers Hussein will be discovered? Do you recommend the same treatment for Saddam as was given his sons?

Besides humanitarian reasons, just think what kind of terrorist information and news of weapons of mass destruction we might have attained if we had captured the brothers alive.
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Aug, 2003 12:06 am
My suggestion to Mr. Hussein would be to not resist arrest.

Oh, and then maintain he is one of the six famous doubles.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Aug, 2003 02:22 am
I think capture would be a more honest word than arrest, Roger - I doubt that Saddam Hussein recognizes the armed forces of the USA as having legal police powers in Iraq.
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
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » DEAD BROTHERS . . .
  3. » Page 11
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/07/2022 at 01:54:26