Waiting for Fitzgerald - Page 165

Penske_Account · 10-10-2005, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
How so? It seems the ST has made a prima facie case he is not qualified, based on the diploma mill certificate, lack of government experience, his coffee slinging background, and the fact that his defenders argue not that he is in fact qualified, but that he hires people who could potentially cover his ass. Not to mention the numerous examples that have come to light recently of Bush administration cronyism and in light of the Harriet Miers' nomination.

Oh, and can we see the resumes of his competent staff too?

What is ST's experience to make such judgments?

Why, what gives you oversight? It's my understanding that is performance has been uniformly sound and commendable, I will let him address your defamation as he will in due course.

Penske_Account · 10-10-2005, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
No. I suppose not.

Also, I said nothing about moral relativism, so put that stalking horse in the barn.

I am claiming that "liv[ing] up to a certain standard of babjesian morality" as you put it involves being "Christ-like" in one's everyday life, philosophy, and dealings with one's fellow humans.

In my view, that seems to imply much more tolerance, openess, understanding, and love for one's fellow man (of all stripes) than the folks at (say) the Southern Baptist Convention or the politically-active religious right seem able to muster. (ATISWWT)

I think they hit the Old Testement way too hard.

S_A_M

They are very tolerant in empowering the sinful and dimwitted to accept the babyjesi in their lifes.

Penske_Account · 10-10-2005, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Apparently, you right-wingers spend much more time with MoveOn and the DU than us "Liberals" do.

God Bless You.

S_A_M

Exactly, and perhaps you should pay more attention to what the leaders of your political party are doing and saying. Blind faith is a sad testament to the rank and file lemmings participation in the system.

Penske_Account · 10-10-2005, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
I'm not sure that the statement was very Christlike, Penske.

S_A_M

I invite the haters, biased and intolerant to change their ways and accept a babyjesian way. I don't applaud intolerance, bias or hate and give it aid or comfort. Hate the sin, love the sinner.

Sexual Harassment Panda · 10-10-2005, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
What is ST's experience to make such judgments?

Why, what gives you oversight? It's my understanding that is performance has been uniformly sound and commendable, I will let him address your defamation as he will in due course.

Oooh, I'm quaking in my wingtips. Let me know if he needs my contact info.

What gives me oversight? The line on my paycheck that reads "Federal income tax" is all the oversight authorization I need.

I don't count on the ST to make judgements. AFAICT, all they are doing is investigative journalism. I'll make my own decisions, based on all the facts (of which his performance would be one factor). You'll forgive me if I don't take your word for the latter.

Gattigap · 10-10-2005, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
Oooh, I'm quaking in my wingtips. Let me know if he needs my contact info.

What gives me oversight? The line on my paycheck that reads "Federal income tax" is all the oversight authorization I need.

I don't count on the ST to make judgements. AFAICT, all they are doing is investigative journalism. I'll make my own decisions, based on all the facts (of which his performance would be one factor). You'll forgive me if I don't take your word for the latter.

Dude, Penske *knows* the guy.

Knows his heart.

Trust him, it's a good choice.

Sexual Harassment Panda · 10-10-2005, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gattigap
Dude, Penske *knows* the guy.

Knows his heart.

Trust him, it's a good choice.

True, but I need to know - has he looked into his eyes, and seen his soul? Is it a good soul? A soul that loves freedom, and hates tyranny? And is he confident that 20 years from now, his soul will still be the same?

Sidd Finch · 10-10-2005, 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
I'm not sure that the statement was very Christlike, Penske.

S_A_M

Yes, but he was really only talking about the leaders of the Dem party.

Hank Chinaski · 10-10-2005, 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Exactly, and perhaps you should pay more attention to what the leaders of your political party are doing and saying. Blind faith is a sad testament to the rank and file lemmings participation in the system.

sometimes I think you too harsh. Remember, the highest political office any Democrat is likely to hold in the next 10-20 years is Executive Producer of the West Wing. Given that, they can get lax. With the Rep. power comes responsibility.

Spanky · 10-10-2005, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
On the same theory that you use with Hitler, how can you say that Stalin truly believed that the needs of the many outweighed the needs of the few?

He murdered millions upon millions, as you note, deported and enslaved millions more, all in the service of consolidating and preserving the power which flowed to: (A) himself; and (B) a relatively tiny elite within the Communist Party (which itself was a minority in the Soviet Union).

Those are not the actions of a man who believes that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

Those are the actions of a man who believes that individuals, their lives, self-determination, etc. have no value -- which may be what you were getting at -- but it is not the same thing.

"The State" does not equal "the many" -- especially in the old Soviet Union -- as I'd think a small government conservative should appreciate.

S_A_M

You are talking like you are part of the deluded left that at first embraced Stalin and then when they realized how horrible things went you tried to argue that what happaned was because Stalin was insane and deluded and what happened was not the logical extension of the communist philosophy.

Someone like Stalin does not stay in power for as long as he did without a signficant portion of the people underneath him believing in the philosophy of what he is doing. Everything he did could be justified as part of his communist philosophy.

Stalin took a backward rural national and turned it into an industrial power house. His country was wiped out during WWII and yet he turned it into one the most advanced and industrialized economies in the world.

He just had to slaughter twenty percent of the population to do it. But the other eighty percent ended up with a much higher standard of living.

The needs of the many outweight the needs of the few.

Penske_Account · 10-10-2005, 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
True, but I need to know - has he looked into his eyes, and seen his soul? Is it a good soul? A soul that loves freedom, and hates tyranny? And is he confident that 20 years from now, his soul will still be the same?

What difference would it make, you wouldn't know what that looks like.

Sidd Finch · 10-10-2005, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
With the Rep. power comes responsibility.

True. We anxiously await the first exercise of same.

Sidd Finch · 10-10-2005, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
Someone like Stalin does not stay in power for as long as he did without a signficant portion of the people underneath him believing in the philosophy of what he is doing. Everything he did could be justified as part of his communist philosophy.

I am barely tuned into this discussion (when did the "P" in "PB" come to stand for Philosophy?), but this statement caught my eye.

Would you say the same about Saddam Hussein? Qaddafi? Castro?

Under your neo-con philosophy, assuming we could have invaded the USSR without triggering a nuclear war, would we have been justified in doing so to prevent the carnage that Stalin wreaked? Should we have told Patton to go for it, back in '45?

Sidd Finch · 10-10-2005, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
What difference would it make, you wouldn't know what that looks like.

True. As a Dem (assuming he is), it is inconceivable that SHP would ever have met anyone who loves freedom and hates tyranny.

Ah, Monday morning..... reading Penske's posts, and the smell of asshole is in the air.

Penske_Account · 10-10-2005, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Yes, but he was really only talking about the leaders of the Dem party.

No, actually I wasn't. Re-read the original post S_A_M responded to. Why when I don't direct comments to you do you internalise and personalise them and when I do you blatantly lie or otherwise distort where I am directing them?????????????

The comment was directed at the contant and explicit personal invective, hate, bias and intolerance that is directed personally and explicitly at me, based solely on my articulation of ideas and political philosophy. While this is not unlike what I see from a lot of people on the left these days with their guiding mantra of "W is Stupid and everyone who voted for him is a christian wacko freak" (which inherently is hateful, biased and intolerant, characterisitics that the left claim to eschew, although there must be a special secret exception for W and his followers, much like the sex exception to the perjury laws), I am in no way blaming the whole of left wing for these PoPD attacks, but rather only those actually culpable.