Waiting for Fitzgerald

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
I don't normally read the Wash. Times, but . . .

No wonder I hadn't heard of the Oreo cookie thing, or the "Uncle Tom" remark. The cookie incident happened in 2002, during Steele's campaign for Lt. Governor, and the second happened in 2001 while he was chair of the Md. GOP.

This is acknowledged a few paragraphs further down in the article. Blending these incidents together in the lead of a piece about Steele's current run for the Senate is just another example of the "fair and balanced" reporting of the Washington Times.




S_A_M

Having happened several years ago does not excuse the behaviour. the same people are still in control of the looneys. Repent S_A_M, you are better than those racists.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
I trust their motives more than those of the career bureaucrats at State or the Valerie Plames at CIA. Israel's motivations are purely self-defence and preservation.

If their motives are purely self-defense and preservation, wouldn't they be motivated to tell us a lie that would get us to invade Syria?

I await your response.

[Captain]

Originally posted by Spanky
But they killed spies right on sight (Washington hung Beneditct Arnold's coconspirator right when they caught him). And that is a spy that was not out to kill women and children.

John Andre, Arnold's co-conspirator, was hung only after being found guilty by a military tribunal, and Washington was subject, even during war, to criticism for providing him with an inadequate trial.

The Founders would have had a number of different views, but, ironically, the more conservative among them would, I believe, have been very protective of the concept that later became known as due process. They viewed their right to a trial by jury, their right of habeus corpus, and other such rights as among their most fundamental.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by taxwonk
The boycott of the pork is displaced. It's not like you're talking sweetbreads, here, man.

Plus, how could anyone boycott carnitas?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Hmmm, you are causing me to re-examine core beliefs. I am not sure I know what is right anymoure.

Then my work here is done. I can retire.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by taxwonk
It's not self-defense if they're in prison. Even super- secret double-supervision plausibly deniable until it got leaked prison. And God doesn't talk to Bush.

Its in furtherance of self defence to get the info regardless of where they are.

Dissent. the palestinians said God talked to Bush and the dems have told me how righteous that group is. I can't not believe when it is the followers of Nobel Peace Prise winner and Clinton pal Arafat attesting to the divine discussion.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Spanky
Right before Guld War I he flew all his jets to Iran.

Yes, and they held the pilots as POWs and kept Saddam's Air Force to add to their own.

I doubt he'd send Iran anything he wanted back. Fool me once . . .

S_A_M

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by taxwonk
SAM, you will find, if you pay any attention to me at all, that I don't generally deal in labels, and in particular in party affiliations. I prefer to take each person on their own. I wasn't talking about the "Dems." I was specifically referring to the actors in the quoted peice.

The actors are part of the group, why apologise for one but decry the other? Is the Klan okay but for its individual members?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Not Bob
Jonathan Pollard.

His motives were fine, his acts were criminal.

[outable] eta: str8 moment: I once bought his first wife's dad some beers. At chadwicks [/outable]

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by taxwonk
So you're saying that it's okay to torture, kill, and abuse people who believe it's okay to torture, kill, and abuse people?

No, I'm saying its easy and brings no moral pangs to ignore the torture and killing of torturers and killers. I wouldn't vote to allow torture, and I wouldn't engage in torture.

But I'm not about to rail against the torture of the sort of people who did things like AQ and the Taliban do.

Don't give me some shit about "If you don't stand up to torture here, you're standing up FOR it everywhere." We're beyond that shit reasoning/sloganeering/gamesmanship, aren't we?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Spanky
It suits you just perfectly. We will just pretend that no one said something negative about your Avatar.

Have you been to the DU?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
If their motives are purely self-defense and preservation, wouldn't they be motivated to tell us a lie that would get us to invade Syria?

they are about self-defence, not imperialistic conquest.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Having happened several years ago does not excuse the behaviour. the same people are still in control of the looneys. Repent S_A_M, you are better than those racists.

You are right its no excuse.

It does strike me, though, that almost all of this abuse comes from his fellow blacks. Penske would attribute this to teh Stockholm syndrome.

But, if so, that can't be racism, can it? After all, its impossible for blacks to be racists because they are the victims of racism, right? Right? [I've been on the other side of that argument a time or two.]

S_A_M

[Captain]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
But I'm not about to rail against the torture of the sort of people who did things like AQ and the Taliban do.

The question is, how do we know these are the sort of people who do things like AQ and the Taliban?

I don't think your view is that someone must be guilty or they wouldn't have been arrested, but tell me if I am wrong on that.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by taxwonk
There is only on God, and em is not false. It's the humans and their rituals that are universally fucked up.

Finally. That's cleared up.