LawTalkers

LawTalkers (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/index.php)
-   Politics (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)
-   -   Politics: Where we struggle to kneel in the muck. (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=630)

bilmore 10-22-2004 03:27 AM

Bait and Switch
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Not Me
Well if you read my title, you would see I am too lazy to google. But when I did muster up the energy to google, this is what I got:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=Hobson
Sigh.

Well, at heart, I am an educator.

Hobson's choice

An apparently free choice that actually offers no alternative. For example, My dad said if I wanted the car I could have it tonight or not at all - that's Hobson's choice. This expression alludes to Thomas Hobson of Cambridge, England, who rented horses and allowed each customer to take only the horse nearest the stable door. [Mid-1600s]

Tyrone Slothrop 10-22-2004 03:29 AM

What it means to be a conservative today
 
Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore
I'm old, and my memory fades, but wasn't the decision made when they realized that, one, the invasion had gone too fast, and, two, that left whole regiments intact and eager to fight under-the-table against us, and, three, they had to redesign from the top down?

I love hindsight. If I could live by it in my job, I wouldn't have to rely on posting for a salary.
Your insistence on defending the Administration through thick and thin is noble, if not misguided. I particularly appreciate it here, since Hello was purveying the notion that Bremer (or someone else) was responsible the for the decision you defend on Bush's behalf.

But it's fun to see one administration defender saying, so it was the wrong thing to do -- it wasn't us, and another saying, it was us, but it wasn't wrong.

bilmore 10-22-2004 03:31 AM

What it means to be a conservative today
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Your insistence on defending the Administration through thick and thin is noble, if not misguided. I particularly appreciate it here, since Hello was purveying the notion that Bremer (or someone else) was responsible the for the decision you defend on Bush's behalf.

But it's fun to see one administration defender saying, so it was the wrong thing to do -- it wasn't us, and another saying, it was us, but it wasn't wrong.
I've watched you post for too long. You danced right past what I said. I can't take credit for what some other "defender" said - only what I say.

Am I wrong?

sebastian_dangerfield 10-22-2004 10:25 AM

Caption Contest
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Quick, where's an adult to tell me to go to my room?

You are quite the name-caller, huh pal?

I'm not accusing you of having anything like a "belief" in God. If you took that literally from my post than you should run out and buy a sarcasm meter. I'm accusing you of misrepresenting a belief in Nada, Nothing, Nobody or whatever you said

I should really be able to ignore you. Why can't I ignore you? Please resign from your post as a moderator of a dead board so I can.

It is you who are hedging, and its in stark contrast to your asserted belief in Nada, Nothing, Nobody. You said it, so what words am I putting in your mouth? You also said everybody is afraid of the end. You denying this?

Here's a clue. The two are irreconcilable. You can't deny God entirely (i.e., Nada, Nothing, Nobody) if you can't disclaim a fear of God. You can't be afraid of something that you affirmatively assert does not exist. Nobody is afraid of nothing. Tell me again how your doggy cried for its mommy when it was going to doggy heaven. At best, people are afraid of what is out there in the unknown. In your case, you are afraid of Who you think might be hiding behind door #1. Yup, you are afraid of the possibility of a big, hairy, vengeful God.

Quick, call me some more names and tell me how you didn't say what you said. I'll see you at mass in 2 days, m'kay buddy? You don't mind if I sign you up for the choir, do ya?

ETA "door"
"Nobody is afraid of nothing."

Well, if you insist on putting the rabbit in the hat, there's no point in debate, is there?

To the contrary, I am very afraid of nothing. Perhaps "fear" might be the wrong word, but lets just say I'm not pleased at the thought of passing from consciousness into nothingness. But I don't have any choice now, do I?

"Yup, you are afraid of the possibility of a big, hairy, vengeful God."

Actually, thats you. I find the notion of a vengeful god to be a construction exclusively of organized religion. It was a cynical way of keeping the masses in check.

If you read my posts, you'd know I actually said I believe in a creating force. I don't, however, believe in the western notion of a "God" who morally judges and has any interest in humanity. I've said that from the start, and you know it. You twisted my words to accuse me of being a hypocritical false atheist.

One can believe in a God and believe that Death is the end for him at the same time. They are not mutually exclusive concepts. You, I presume, do not see these as mutually exlusive concepts. And the reason is because without the afterlife, your belief in god really has no point.

I don't mean to attack your faith, but there are so many holes in what you believe, and you seem so unable to defend it on its merits, that I just can't help myself. I see so many intellectually dishonest concepts bandied about this country these days, and I view "faith" as one of the chief instigators of this dumbing-down of society. I'm sorry, but it really offends me. I don't understand how a mind can self-manipulate to the point where it believes the fantastic and rejects the obvious. Its baffling.

sebastian_dangerfield 10-22-2004 10:39 AM

Caption Contest
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
But will you admit I'm right and you'll repent at the end? mohammed Atta probably had a moment, coming up the river, where he started to question whether he'd actually get all the virgins. Fear of death is universal- even for the true believers. people are just asking: don't you admit there is a 1% chance of god?
Oy veh. For the 50th time, I actually believe in a creating force of some sort. I mean, something staretd this whole thing, right? I just don't buy into any of the rubbish created by man about there being a god who has a special interest in mankind, that mankind is somehow blessed, that there's a heaven and hell, that we'll be "judged", that there'll be a second coming... etc... That I don't buy. Its all unprovable silliness.

Hank Chinaski 10-22-2004 10:54 AM

Caption Contest
 
Quote:

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Oy veh. For the 50th time, I actually believe in a creating force of some sort. I mean, something staretd this whole thing, right? I just don't buy into any of the rubbish created by man about there being a god who has a special interest in mankind, that mankind is somehow blessed, that there's a heaven and hell, that we'll be "judged", that there'll be a second coming... etc... That I don't buy. Its all unprovable silliness.
I didn't say now, I said in the hospital. Unless......you're not trying to break some horrible news are you?

Say_hello_for_me 10-22-2004 11:02 AM

What it means to be a conservative today
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Your insistence on defending the Administration through thick and thin is noble, if not misguided. I particularly appreciate it here, since Hello was purveying the notion that Bremer (or someone else) was responsible the for the decision you defend on Bush's behalf.

But it's fun to see one administration defender saying, so it was the wrong thing to do -- it wasn't us, and another saying, it was us, but it wasn't wrong.
I'm certainly not defending the administration generally; rather, only insofar as Bremer is attacking it. I'm not saying the Administration isn't responsible for this. Rather, I'm saying Bremer isn't exactly the guy I want to see with his hindsight criticism, since its his judgements were in question. So how much for that bridge? I'd rather get an explanation from Kerry about when he would be willing to use unilateral preemptive military force, but I don't think you people are selling this information for anything.

Hello

Not Bob 10-22-2004 11:11 AM

Love me, love me, love me -- I'm a liberal
 
Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore
There's this story of the famine-hit village where people are hungry, stores are empty, and months of winter beckon.

The dem pulls out the seed stock and cook it up. All the people caught short because of poor planning, lost jobs, and dead crops are thrilled. Everyone eats.

Then, next spring, everyone dies.
So, Social Security is eating the seed corn? Or which New Deal (or Fair Deal or Great Society) program that the GOP opposed are you talking about?

And if you are talking about funding amounts, not the program's very existance, then you are guilty of the "me-too-ism" that the Taft wing crucified Dewey for after 1948 and the Goldwater wing crucified Sebby's hero Nelson for in 1964.

Not Bob 10-22-2004 11:16 AM

Caption Contest
 
Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
I've been too busy to respond substantively today to the porn thread, but does anybody remember what Tipper Gore was famous for before "The Kiss."
Yes, and it was one of the things that cost her husband the nomination of his party in 1988.

No one disputes that the Democratic party has social conservatives, too. The difference is that they don't get pandered. (I know, I know -- the Dems do plenty of pandering. Just not to them.)

Say_hello_for_me 10-22-2004 11:34 AM

Caption Contest
 
Quote:

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
"Nobody is afraid of nothing."

Well, if you insist on putting the rabbit in the hat, there's no point in debate, is there?
Huh?


Quote:

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Perhaps "fear" might be the wrong word, but lets just say I'm not pleased at the thought of passing from consciousness into nothingness. But I don't have any choice now, do I?
This sounds introspective. Like a retraction. When you can figure out another word that you think is right, please be sure to let me know, alrighty?


Quote:

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield

"Yup, you are afraid of the possibility of a big, hairy, vengeful God."

Actually, thats you. I find the notion of a vengeful god to be a construction exclusively of organized religion. It was a cynical way of keeping the masses in check.

Hey, you are the guy who admitted "fear". And who said anything about organized religion? Why do you keep bringing that up? Guilt from a Catholic upbringing? You know, this stuff existed before Catholicism. Is there Catholocism for cats?

Quote:

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
You twisted my words to accuse me of being a hypocritical false atheist.
And? Actually, I used your words directly. The conclusion is yours.

Quote:

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I don't mean to attack your faith, but there are so many holes in what you believe, and you seem so unable to defend it on its merits, that I just can't help myself.
Actually, we've been talking about you. What happened to you in the Catholic church anyways?

Hello

ET fix /QUOTEs

Replaced_Texan 10-22-2004 11:37 AM

Atrios I can understand, but banning fafblog? Florida is an odd state.

via fafblog

sgtclub 10-22-2004 11:40 AM

What it means to be a conservative today
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Your insistence on defending the Administration through thick and thin is noble, if not misguided. I particularly appreciate it here, since Hello was purveying the notion that Bremer (or someone else) was responsible the for the decision you defend on Bush's behalf.

But it's fun to see one administration defender saying, so it was the wrong thing to do -- it wasn't us, and another saying, it was us, but it wasn't wrong.
If I understand Billmore correctly, I think he's saying that, with hindsight, it was a misstake, but that, at the time, it was a defendable choice. At least that's what I believe. You seem to want a perfectly executed war and have an emotional reaction to the fact that it didn't go perfectly, probably because you believe the planning was poor, which it probably was.

dtb 10-22-2004 11:44 AM

Caption Contest
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
It's this simple; if you want us to grant you some gravitas you really must eliminate the typos. The typos show even you don't truly believe your thesis. Without correction, you'll soon be nothing more than dtb with a drinking problem. No offense.
I can't figure out whom you're trying to insult here. No offense.

sebastian_dangerfield 10-22-2004 11:45 AM

Caption Contest
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Hey, you are the guy who admitted "fear". And who said anything about organized religion? Why do you keep bringing that up? Guilt from a Catholic upbringing? You know, this stuff existed before Catholicism. Is there Catholocism for cats?

And? Actually, I used your words directly. The conclusion is yours.

Actually, we've been talking about you. What happened to you in the Catholic church anyways?

Hello
I feel like Jon Stewart dealing with Tucker Carlson. You'll take that as a compliment, I'm sure.

Did you just call me Coltrane? 10-22-2004 11:51 AM

What it means to be a conservative today
 
Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
If I understand Billmore correctly, I think he's saying that, with hindsight, it was a misstake, but that, at the time, it was a defendable choice. At least that's what I believe. You seem to want a perfectly executed war and have an emotional reaction to the fact that it didn't go perfectly, probably because you believe the planning was poor, which it probably was.
This is fine if it was hindsight for everyone. But it wasn't.
It was only hindsight for a very small minority. A minority that lacks even a minute amount of prescience.

sgtclub 10-22-2004 11:52 AM

Caption Contest
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Not Bob
Yes, and it was one of the things that cost her husband the nomination of his party in 1988.

No one disputes that the Democratic party has social conservatives, too. The difference is that they don't get pandered. (I know, I know -- the Dems do plenty of pandering. Just not to them.)
Are you saying that the Gores are social conservatives?

sebastian_dangerfield 10-22-2004 11:53 AM

Caption Contest
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Not Bob
Yes, and it was one of the things that cost her husband the nomination of his party in 1988.

No one disputes that the Democratic party has social conservatives, too. The difference is that they don't get pandered. (I know, I know -- the Dems do plenty of pandering. Just not to them.)
The difference is that Dem Social conservatives are not as shrill and don't view themselves as having a duty to inflict their beliefs on others. If you want to see just how scary things may get in the coming years if W gets re-elected, read this morning's Times OpEd from the Bishop of Denver. He's effectively telling Catholics, and Evangelical Christians, that they have a duty to vote in line withChurch Doctrine and to work to impose their values on the larger populous. Yes, I recognize that people have been doing that for a long time, but that its accpetbale to demand such action in the paper of record for the country is scary. In 40 years, we've gone from the Country beeing vigilant to make sure Rome did not dictate to JFK to a country where its accpeted and acceptable for the Church to baldly admit its trying to inflict its policies on a secular government.

Am I too Chicken Littleish here or is this shit as scary as it seems?

dtb 10-22-2004 11:56 AM

Caption Contest
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Of course, what else would he be afraid of in the great everlasting Nada?
Is God an essential part of any afterlife? Is there a treatise on this or something?

I'm a "believer", but I don't see why you think sd has admitted that he believes in God if he admits he will be afraid of what happens to him after he dies.

No one can prove there is or isn't an afterlife -- or if there is, what it is like, and I don't think that believing there could be some form of existence after death is a de facto admission that there is a God.

Why are you so threatened by the fact that someone does not believe in God?

Hank Chinaski 10-22-2004 11:59 AM

Caption Contest
 
Quote:

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
The difference is that Dem Social conservatives are not as shrill and don't view themselves as having a duty to inflict their beliefs on others. If you want to see just how scary things may get in the coming years if W gets re-elected, read this morning's Times OpEd from the Bishop of Denver. He's effectively telling Catholics, and Evangelical Christians, that they have a duty to vote in line withChurch Doctrine and to work to impose their values on the larger populous. Yes, I recognize that people have been doing that for a long time, but that its accpetbale to demand such action in the paper of record for the country is scary. In 40 years, we've gone from the Country beeing vigilant to make sure Rome did not dictate to JFK to a country where its accpeted and acceptable for the Church to baldly admit its trying to inflict its policies on a secular government.

Am I too Chicken Littleish here or is this shit as scary as it seems?
All across the nation's big cities Dems are going into Church's where Reverands are telling their congregations they have to vote Democrat. You're in a swing state- put on an "urban format" radio station. Al Sharpton is on the airwaves at every commercial break telling people they had better vote for Kerry or they'll likely lose everything they have.

So what is the difference?

Not Bob 10-22-2004 12:01 PM

Caption Contest
 
Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
Are you saying that the Gores are social conservatives?
In 1988, Tipper certainly was viewed as one thanks to the parental advisory thingy (PMRC? something like that) she and Jim Baker's wife started.

Al was, too. For a while, he supported the constitutional amendment route to overturning Roe v. Wade. And he was regarded as a Cold War hawk (of the the military reform variety -- Midgetman versus MX, etc.), for that matter.

sgtclub 10-22-2004 12:02 PM

What it means to be a conservative today
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
This is fine if it was hindsight for everyone. But it wasn't.
It was only hindsight for a very small minority. A minority that lacks even a minute amount of prescience.
Of course it wasn't, that's why it is a mistake. But it is a defendable mistake. There are other mistakes that are not defendable, but this isn't one of them.

sgtclub 10-22-2004 12:05 PM

Caption Contest
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Not Bob
In 1988, Tipper certainly was viewed as one thanks to the parental advisory thingy (PMRC? something like that) she and Jim Baker's wife started.

Al was, too. For a while, he supported the constitutional amendment route to overturning Roe v. Wade. And he was regarded as a Cold War hawk (of the the military reform variety -- Midgetman versus MX, etc.), for that matter.
Don't you remember the whole Ice-T thing and how he called her out in the song: "Fuck Tipper Gore, Bush and his cripple bitch"

Replaced_Texan 10-22-2004 12:06 PM

Another reason that Sebby shouldn't vote for Bush. Spree: Rolling Stone article.

ETA Bulletin:

BULLETIN
KERRY WINS GONZO ENDORSMENT; DR. THOMPSON JOINS DEMOCRAT IN CALLING BUSH "THE SYPHILLIS PRESIDENT"
"Four more years of George Bush will be like four more years of syphilis," the famed author said yesterday at a hastily called press conference near his home in Woody Creek, Colorado. "Only a fool or a sucker would vote for a dangerous loser like Bush," Dr. Thompson warned. "He hates everything we stand for, and he knows we will vote against him in November."

Thompson, long known for the eerie accuracy of his political instincts, went on to denounce Ralph Nader as "a worthless Judas Goat with no moral compass."

"I endorsed John Kerry a long time ago," he said, "and I will do everything in my power, short of roaming the streets with a meat hammer, to help him be the next President of the United States."

sgtclub 10-22-2004 12:12 PM

Selling Out Israel
 
Quote:

The centerpiece of John Kerry's foreign policy is to rebuild our alliances so the world will come to our aid, especially in Iraq. He repeats this endlessly because it is the only foreign policy idea he has to offer. The problem for Kerry is that he cannot explain just how he proposes to do this. . . .

He really does want to end America's isolation. And he has an idea how to do it. For understandable reasons, however, he will not explain how on the eve of an election.

Think about it: What do the Europeans and the Arab states endlessly rail about in the Middle East? What (outside of Iraq) is the area of most friction with U.S. policy? What single issue most isolates America from the overwhelming majority of countries at the United Nations?

The answer is obvious: Israel.

In what currency, therefore, would we pay the rest of the world in exchange for their support in places such as Iraq? The answer is obvious: giving in to them on Israel.

No Democrat will say that openly. But anyone familiar with the code words of Middle East diplomacy can read between the lines.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer

Say_hello_for_me 10-22-2004 12:15 PM

Caption Contest
 
Quote:

Originally posted by dtb
Is God an essential part of any afterlife? Is there a treatise on this or something?

I'm a "believer", but I don't see why you think sd has admitted that he believes in God if he admits he will be afraid of what happens to him after he dies.

No one can prove there is or isn't an afterlife -- or if there is, what it is like, and I don't think that believing there could be some form of existence after death is a de facto admission that there is a God.

Why are you so threatened by the fact that someone does not believe in God?
Oh sweetie, let me put this in pretty picture for you.

There is
1.) an affirmative belief (conviction) in God (or Gods, or a higher power, or the Mountain);
2.) an affirmative belief that there is not a God etc.; and
3.) anything in-between.

So, for starters, I'm not threatened by the "fact" that someone does not believe in God. How did you come away from this daylong discussion with this impression? Your final question is the equivalent of me asking why you hate black people (i.e., huh?).

As to your first question, if you can set out any (i.e, any) explanation for a fear that is not based on judgement, punishment, pain or something along those lines, than have at it. Last I checked, Sebby was backpedaling away from that position, and I'm not sure he wants to sacrifice you as his rear guard. No matter, y'all find a better word to describe his "concern" about what happens, and I'm all ears. Meantime, I've answered his question about why people feel they can impose morality on others. If this (imposing morality on others to, e.g., enfranchise others) weren't a fundamental part of human history, defenseless people like blacks and women would still be traded on auction blocks and prohibited from voting with the enfranchised white men. How could we do this to southern slaveholders? How could we do this to wife beaters and Mormons? And why are you arguing that we shouldn't have?

Hello

Not Me 10-22-2004 12:17 PM

Caption Contest
 
Quote:

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I actually believe in a creating force of some sort. I mean, something staretd this whole thing, right?
But who started the something that started this whole thing?

Hank Chinaski 10-22-2004 12:17 PM

What it means to be a conservative today
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
This is fine if it was hindsight for everyone. But it wasn't.
It was only hindsight for a very small minority. A minority that lacks even a minute amount of prescience.
so you're saying keeping the Iraq Army intact, and assuming its loyalty could be switched like a light was a unquestionable decision? At long last has your hatred for Bush gone to the extreme that you do not even care what nonsense you sling as long as you can direct it at Bush. Fuck some cite Ty has to what some General thought. Some General always thinks things should go different, especially after the fact. I bet you can find lots of Generals in '46 who were saying what they had told Ike in '44 about watching out for a counterattack in France.

Shape Shifter 10-22-2004 12:19 PM

Caption Contest
 
Quote:

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Am I too Chicken Littleish here or is this shit as scary as it seems?
Nope. It's scary. Esp if W is able to make SC appointments.

Sure there are some Dem social conservatives, but it's relative. I don't recall any Dem-backed plans in the last 10 years to prohibit teaching evolution in public schools.

sgtclub 10-22-2004 12:21 PM

NYT: Kerry Film Should be Aired by Network TV
 
I'm not a regular reader of the times, so I don't know anything about this author, but I find this interesting:

Quote:

tolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal," the highly contested anti-Kerry documentary, should not be shown by the Sinclair Broadcast Group. It should be shown in its entirety on all the networks, cable stations and on public television.

This histrionic, often specious and deeply sad film does not do much more damage to Senator John Kerry's reputation than have the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth's negative ads, which have flooded television markets in almost every swing state. But it does help viewers better understand the rage fueling the unhappy band of brothers who oppose Mr. Kerry's candidacy and his claim to heroism.

Sinclair, the nation's largest television station group, reaching about a quarter of United States television households, backed down this week and announced that it would use only excerpts from the 42-minute film as part of an hourlong news program about political use of the media, "A P.O.W. Story: Politics, Pressure and the Media.'' That's too bad: what is most enlightening about this film is not the depiction of Mr. Kerry as a traitor; it is the testimony of the former P.O.W.'s describing the torture they endured in captivity and the shock they felt when celebrities like Jane Fonda and Tom Hayden visited their prisons in North Vietnam and sided with the enemy.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/21/ar...ner=ALTAVISTA1

dtb 10-22-2004 12:23 PM

Caption Contest
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Oh sweetie, let me put this in pretty picture for you.

There is
1.) an affirmative belief (conviction) in God (or Gods, or a higher power, or the Mountain);
2.) an affirmative belief that there is not a God etc.; and
3.) anything in-between.

So, for starters, I'm not threatened by the "fact" that someone does not believe in God. How did you come away from this daylong discussion with this impression? Your final question is the equivalent of me asking why you hate black people (i.e., huh?).

As to your first question, if you can set out any (i.e, any) explanation for a fear that is not based on judgement, punishment, pain or something along those lines, than have at it. Last I checked, Sebby was backpedaling away from that position, and I'm not sure he wants to sacrifice you as his rear guard. No matter, y'all find a better word to describe his "concern" about what happens, and I'm all ears. Meantime, I've answered his question about why people feel they can impose morality on others. If this (imposing morality on others to, e.g., enfranchise others) weren't a fundamental part of human history, defenseless people like blacks and women would still be traded on auction blocks and prohibited from voting with the enfranchised white men. How could we do this to southern slaveholders? How could we do this to wife beaters and Mormons? And why are you arguing that we shouldn't have?

Hello
Oh little angel, your condescension is really so unbecoming. It appears that the only person you have convinced is yourself. That must make you so proud -- and deservedly so!! If only you were here so I could print out your post (I can tell you tried really hard) and hand it to you with a big happy face on it!! In sparkly ink!!

Until then, enjoy your pretty picture!!

Big kiss!

Hank Chinaski 10-22-2004 12:26 PM

Caption Contest
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Nope. It's scary. Esp if W is able to make SC appointments.

Sure there are some Dem social conservatives, but it's relative. I don't recall any Dem-backed plans in the last 10 years to prohibit teaching evolution in public schools.
Numbskull.
there are no dem backed plans to change how history is taught in schools? no plans to de-emphasize the United States' role in World events, the role of Europeans in US history?

Shit you want to start spouting extreme positions- Some Dems proposed switching teaching in Oakland school to ebonics. Does that mean if Kerry wins we'll be going forward?

greatwhitenorthchick 10-22-2004 12:26 PM

Hallowe'en
 
Anyone else read the WSJ article today about parents' (of all political stripes) using their kids' Hallowe'en costumes to advertise their political views? I found this pretty disgusting. The parents actually seemed proud of it. One choice quote:

"She's a walking billboard for our opinions" - parent of four year-old who will be sporting a John Kerry-stickered backpack with her Tinkerbell costume.

And another:

"She's a big supporter" - parent talking about daughter on whose kangaroo costume he's considering putting a BC campaign button.

Not that Hallowe'en is sacred or anything - it just seems very crass to use kids as billboards and not see anything wrong with that.

Hank Chinaski 10-22-2004 12:27 PM

NYT: Kerry Film Should be Aired by Network TV
 
Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
I'm not a regular reader of the times, so I don't know anything about this author, but I find this interesting:



http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/21/ar...ner=ALTAVISTA1
I have yet to see a SBVFT ad. What is wrong with me? Not enough TV?

Not Me 10-22-2004 12:28 PM

Caption Contest
 
Quote:

Originally posted by dtb

No one can prove there is or isn't an afterlife
Actually, if it does exist and there is any cross over between this life and an afterlife, it is provable. The only issue is becoming technologically advanced enough to gather the evidence to prove it. Perhaps once we understand consciouness better we will have the tools to assess whether consciousness outlives our flesh.

sebastian_dangerfield 10-22-2004 12:31 PM

You know, I'd thought he lost it about a decade ago, but occasionally he comes back with something that shows the lights are still on.

He's right, but he's always been right.

Quote:

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Another reason that Sebby shouldn't vote for Bush. Spree: Rolling Stone article.

ETA Bulletin:

BULLETIN
KERRY WINS GONZO ENDORSMENT; DR. THOMPSON JOINS DEMOCRAT IN CALLING BUSH "THE SYPHILLIS PRESIDENT"
"Four more years of George Bush will be like four more years of syphilis," the famed author said yesterday at a hastily called press conference near his home in Woody Creek, Colorado. "Only a fool or a sucker would vote for a dangerous loser like Bush," Dr. Thompson warned. "He hates everything we stand for, and he knows we will vote against him in November."

Thompson, long known for the eerie accuracy of his political instincts, went on to denounce Ralph Nader as "a worthless Judas Goat with no moral compass."

"I endorsed John Kerry a long time ago," he said, "and I will do everything in my power, short of roaming the streets with a meat hammer, to help him be the next President of the United States."


Not Bob 10-22-2004 12:31 PM

Hallowe'en (who can turn the world on with her smile)
 
Quote:

Originally posted by greatwhitenorthchick
Not that Hallowe'en is sacred or anything - it just seems very crass to use kids as billboards and not see anything wrong with that.
Obviously you are not a parent. In accordance with the religious beliefs of Mrs. Not Bob and I, the Not Bobette will be out trick or treating dressed as Rhoda Morgenstern (original Popess of the First Universal Church of Mary Richards).

Mis-ter Grant!

Not Me 10-22-2004 12:31 PM

NYT: Kerry Film Should be Aired by Network TV
 
Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
I'm not a regular reader of the times, so I don't know anything about this author, but I find this interesting:



http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/21/ar...ner=ALTAVISTA1
Umm, what exactly do you find interesting about it?

Shape Shifter 10-22-2004 12:33 PM

Caption Contest
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Numbskull.
there are no dem backed plans to change how history is taught in schools? no plans to de-emphasize the United States' role in World events, the role of Europeans in US history?

Shit you want to start spouting extreme positions- Some Dems proposed switching teaching in Oakland school to ebonics. Does that mean if Kerry wins we'll be going forward?
I haven't seen any laws on the books to that effect.

Why is it that people who are so afraid of evolution have no problem having a chimp for president?

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 10-22-2004 12:35 PM

Hallowe'en
 
Quote:

Originally posted by greatwhitenorthchick
Anyone else read the WSJ article today about parents' (of all political stripes) using their kids' Hallowe'en costumes to advertise their political views? I found this pretty disgusting. The parents actually seemed proud of it. One choice quote:

"She's a walking billboard for our opinions" - parent of four year-old who will be sporting a John Kerry-stickered backpack with her Tinkerbell costume.

And another:

"She's a big supporter" - parent talking about daughter on whose kangaroo costume he's considering putting a BC campaign button.

Not that Hallowe'en is sacred or anything - it just seems very crass to use kids as billboards and not see anything wrong with that.
Of course, sometimes kids choose these opinions for themselves pretty early (and sometimes they choose the opposite opinion just to tease their parents). So the "SHE'S a big supporter" doesn't bother me, though the "she's a walking billboard for OUR opinions" does.

It's interesting, very few parents hesitate to impose, say, their religious views on their children, yet many hesitate to impose political views. Why is that?

Say_hello_for_me 10-22-2004 12:35 PM

Caption Contest
 
Quote:

Originally posted by dtb
It appears that the only person you have convinced is yourself. That must make you so proud -- and deservedly so!!
Its so sad to see the sacrifices of a rearguard. The only person I'm sure I've convinced of anything is Sebby. He was last seen running away from his "fear" (well, the use of the word "fear"). And he left pretty little you here as a distraction.

Regards,

Hello


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:55 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
Hosted By: URLJet.com