LawTalkers - The babyjesuschristsuperstar on Board: filling the moral void of Clinton’s legacy

Originally posted by taxwonk
On the other hand, let's not go overboard. The world is pretty much run by a small group of greedy white men. They tend to stack the deck in their favor and pass out just enough opportunity to keep the underclass from rising up in enough numbers to actually do anything. I know they exist, and so do an awful lot of us lawyer types, for the simple reason that we get paid much better than fry cooks to do their bidding and make sure that the systems stays within their control while appearing neutral and impartial.

I think you just proved Sebby's point

Tyrone Slothrop

02-12-2006 04:02 PM

The whole thing was premeditated?

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
Does anyone know if this is how it happened?

A commenter on my blog pointed me to this account.

eta:
Diane -- your mailbox is full.

taxwonk

02-12-2006 06:49 PM

InaniTy

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
I think you just proved Sebby's point

I think you just took one paragraph from my post and stripped it of context. Either that or just just suffer from poor reading comprehension.

Since the first part of my post agreed with Sebby's view regarding the overreaction to the publishing and then republishing of the cartoons, didn't it occur to you that the paragraph you just posted should be taken with a dram of W-A-T-E-R?

Diane_Keaton

02-12-2006 11:31 PM

Confusion

Clarified by Ty. Gracias.

Secret_Agent_Man

02-13-2006 11:50 AM

The whole thing was premeditated?

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
Does anyone know if this is how it happened? This is from Ann Coulter so I am very sckeptical to its accuracy.
_________________________________________________
"The culture editor of a newspaper in Denmark suspected writers and cartoonists were engaging in self-censorship when it came to the Religion of Peace.
* * *

So, after verifying that his life insurance premiums were paid up, the editor expressly requested cartoons of Muhammad from every cartoonist with a Danish cartoon syndicate. Out of 40 cartoonists, only 10 accepted the invitation, most of them submitting utterly neutral drawings with no political content whatsoever.

But three cartoons made political points.
* * * _________________________________________________
Was there a contest? Were these three selected? Anyone have a clue?

This story is basically consistent with what I have heard from other sources. However, I don't think it was a "contest." I think the editor printed all 10 cartoons he received -- to make his point about self-censorship.

He was surely expecting some controversy -- so in that sense it was "premeditated", but I don't think he cherry-picked from the submissions.

S_A_M

sgtclub

02-13-2006 12:02 PM

InaniTy

Quote:

Originally posted by taxwonk
I think you just took one paragraph from my post and stripped it of context. Either that or just just suffer from poor reading comprehension.

Since the first part of my post agreed with Sebby's view regarding the overreaction to the publishing and then republishing of the cartoons, didn't it occur to you that the paragraph you just posted should be taken with a dram of W-A-T-E-R?

It would have with most other posters, but it didn't seem like a stretch for you.

Tyrone Slothrop

02-13-2006 12:29 PM

more Danish

I agree with Hugh Hewitt.

And Slave's going to miss it. Hi club!

original Hank@judged.com

02-13-2006 02:17 PM

InaniTy

Quote:

Shouldn't this post be made 3 days from now?

RT, can you check see if Ty@50 has hacked Wonk's log-in?

sgtclub

02-13-2006 02:29 PM

more Danish

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I agree with Hugh Hewitt.

And Slave's going to miss it. Hi club!

Hola. Haven't been posting much lately. Still trying to get adjusted to new digs, plus I'm saving my energy for the election season.

Diane_Keaton

02-13-2006 04:38 PM

Mnnnn, Danish

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I agree with Hugh Hewitt.

And Slave's going to miss it. Hi club!

Well, the Hewitt article is okay but to me, it doesn't really say more than: "yeah, free speech is good but as part of good strategy - for the wars going on right now and the larger struggle in the Muslim world -- publishing and republishing the cartoons was just stoopid."

Ho hum. A lof of people don't think it was "good strategy", including most of the people on here who argued forcefully that Muslims shouldn't get a break from cartoons merely because of their religion being against this or that or said it was bullshit that Muslims should have been more offended because the cartoons were worse than Piss Christ. (Exception, maybe Less who said something like it's good to prove how badly many Muslims can act (as if we needed to prove that). You should do your own piece on the topic, incorporating some of the things argued here.

[Timely that I watched "Kingdom of Heaven" last night about the battle over Jerusalem between Crusaders and Syria via Saladin. )

LessinSF

02-13-2006 04:39 PM

Mnnnn, Danish

Quote:

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
... (Exception, maybe Less who said something like it's good to prove how badly many Muslims can act (as if we needed to prove that). ...

I am ready to get on with "the clash of civilizations."

Tyrone Slothrop

02-13-2006 04:46 PM

Mnnnn, Danish

Quote:

Originally posted by LessinSF
I am ready to get on with "the clash of civilizations."

See, I'd rather keep fighting with the moderate Moslems against the radical Islamists.

Hank Chinaski

02-13-2006 04:54 PM

Mnnnn, Danish

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
See, I'd rather keep fighting with the moderate Moslems against the radical Islamists.

delusional:

de·lu·sion n.

1 a. The act or process of deluding.
b. The state of being deluded.

2 A false belief or opinion: labored under the delusion that success was at hand.

3 Psychiatry. A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence, especially as a symptom of mental illness: delusions of persecution.

Sidd Finch

02-13-2006 04:55 PM

InaniTy

Quote:

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
(b) In my view, the comparison don't quite work -- because provoking the Christian right in this country does not endanger our national security or interfere with the stated aims of our foreign policy (i.e. the WOT) -- except arguably by causing them to band together to elect Republican candidates.

[Remember, I am one of the cowardly appeasers who (in my last 6-7 posts on the subject) framed the issue of re-prints in terms of whether it was smart/helpful to our foreign policy.]

I missed that one. Did you explain why it is that newspapers should make editorial decisions based on what advances US foreign policy?

Next you'll say that they shouldn't publish pictures of soldiers' coffins because that would bring the cost of the war home in too personal a way.

Secret_Agent_Man

02-13-2006 05:49 PM

InaniTy

Quote:

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
I missed that one. Did you explain why it is that newspapers should make editorial decisions based on what advances US foreign policy?

Next you'll say that they shouldn't publish pictures of soldiers' coffins because that would bring the cost of the war home in too personal a way.

(a) Not entirely sure that was the complete context of my post, but I think was arguing that they should have exercised their editorial discretion differently because of the harm to U.S. foreign policy interests -- which in this case are also their own individual and national interests -- whether they are a U.S. paper or a European paper and whether they know it or not.

(b) No. In fact, the government's efforts to remove the opportunity for such pictures is offensive because it minimizes the cost of war, which is (in my view) more harmful in a different way.

(c) Stop being such a snotty bitch, Sidd. This one has you all bent out of shape.

S_A_M

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:01 PM.

Page 248 of 334

248

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page