Have Fun, RT
 

I think that might be prudent, because if I post one more line by line parsing of your arguments, I think I will be lynched by the other members of the board.

Ty v. Ty
 

I recall only one such post, so perhaps I missed it.

InaniTy
 

If I'm not confused, here are the three quotes from Spanky's first post:

• --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
  I don't recall saying that [the points these cartoons were trying to make have no place in the public discourse], either. Jesus Christ, what is wrong with you?
  
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
  I'm saying that editors -- think about why they're called that - should use their discretion to avoid offending people for no reason.
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop I didn't think these cartoons have much merit to them. Other than as a poke in the eye with a sharp stick,
  
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm still not seeing a contradiction. The larger points that these cartoons were making about Islam and violence certainly have a place in the public discourse. When I say the cartoons don't have much merit, I'm trying to say that there are plenty of other ways to make those points, and that I didn't think there was anything interesting or meritorious about the way that those particular cartoons got at the larger point. I think the same points could have been made in a number of other ways without depicting Mohammed. I gather that the cartoonist was inclined to give (at least some) Moslems a poke in the eye with a sharp stick, and as an editor I wouldn't see that as a sufficient reason to run something.

Spanky, I enjoy the give and take with you, but indeed it does get frustrating when you "parse" individual sentences instead of trying to figure out what I'm getting at. I'm having a hard time seeing where we disagree, except perhaps that you think that when editors do their job, they should ignore whether people are going to take offense at what they run, while I think it's something editors should take into account.

Things I don't think include:

- subjects that bother people should not be addressed
- editorial cartoons are useless
- Christians should take offense at nothing
- newspapers should not talk about violence in the name of Islam

Have Fun, RT
 

This reminds of of that great scene in True Romance:

Hopper: "So ya see, you... you're part eggplant."

Wallken: "Ha ha. You're funny. I love this guy."

Hopper: "I think I'll take that cigarette now."

Ty v. Ty
 

Is this like Steven Colbert's "Formidable Opponent"?

If 6 were 9?

InaniTy
 

luminosity
 

InaniTy
 

For the love of Pete: Slow down. I just realized I was talking about the second one and you about the first. I was in the middle of editing it to change it when you replied. Don't you have a job?

The quotes stand on their own. If anyone else besides Ty of SAM doesn't understand where the contradiction are please let me know.

A Democrat on the Hill writes to Josh.
 

• People, and the media in particular, are getting way too caught up on "who lobbied who, and for what reason" and anyone who was lobbied, is a lobbyist, worked with a lobbyist, or received a donation from someone represented by a lobbyist has the stench of corruption. That's unfair and misses the crux of this particular scandal, and how GOP pay to play government works.
  Its not illegal to be lobbied, and hell, we couldn't do our jobs if we didn't interact with them. Legislation/regulation/oversight can't be done solely by Google research. What is illegal is to go out of your way, and use your position, as quid pro quo for gifts, jobs, and campaign contributions. The vast majority of Democratic staffers work on the Hill, despite the miserable pay and long hours, to try to achieve some measure of good. Many, many Republican staffers- convinced that government is an evil- work here in order to make money off that necessary evil. That breeds corruption. When you have a majority of members and staffers that could care less about policy ad governing and more about power/influence/money/profit Abramoff is inevitable. When the hard, tedious work of legislating and oversight is done by people motivated by careerism rather than professionalism not only do you have Abramoff, but you have Michael Brown, Halliburton, and illegal NSA wiretapping.

linky

Paging PLF
 

Need an irony ruling: Israel plans to build 'museum of tolerance' on Muslim graves

edit, not quote, damnit

Have Fun, RT
 

If I knew I was getting my head sliced off with a dull knife by some crazy Arab fuck, rather than pleading and crying for an end to the war on TV (bc that shit never works and it would freak my parents out) I'd do one of those bits (maybe even in an Alabama Worly accent). Something about the history of Arab migration and camel DNA, etc. As a reluctant ex smoker, it's a shame I wouldn't get a final cig, though. Mmmn. Strong menthol cigarettes.

InaniTy
 

The first time that you said I contradicted myself, I had the courtesy to give you a substantive response. I regret that you can't be bothered to do the same.

A Democrat on the Hill writes to Josh.
 

Politicians and statesmen that participate in corruption hurt their friends and help their enemies. Members that are corrupt wound their own party and the nation but provide comfort to the opposition. What really assists the other party is when the guilty claim that they are being singled out because of partisan persecution.

When Jim Wright and Dan Rostenkowski were looting the national treasury, they screwed the nation and the Democrat party and the entire Democrat cause. When they said they were only being persecuted out of partisanship, they hurt any Democrat who really was being targeted for purely partisan reasons. Since these men were associated with Democrat causes they irreparably harmed such causes. It was their corruption that I believe that lead to the Republican takeover. A great many honest Democrats lost their seats because of what these guys did. When Democrats in Congress were being subject to purely partisan attacks, no one believed they were because Rostenkowski and Wright had already cried wolf. Dan and Jim assisted the Republican party and the Republican cause more than almost any Republican during their time by handing the Congress to the Republicans.

On the flip side, these Republicans today that have associated themselves with Abramoff have helped the Democrat party more than any Democrat possibly could. Every time these guys like Delay, who claims that they are being persecuted out of a partisan vendetta, screams persecution, they are providing future cover for all future real partisan vendettas against Republicans. These corrupt Republicans are associating Republican causes, such as limited government, tax cuts, a strong defense, free trade etc, with corruption and therefore are preventing these policies from being implemented. Delay, Pombo, Doolittle etc, are doing what the Democrats could not do themselves, they are hamstringing the Republican revolution. And they may implement what the Democrats could only dream of but could never achieve on their own, Democrat control of the Congress.

Delay, Pombo, Doolittle, Abramoff etc, are the true champions of the Democrat party and of liberal causes.

Thanks guys.