Politics: A new beginning

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
the conservatives on this board (and elsewhere) are the true supporters of free speech.

Nice broad sweeping statement. I'm sure it must be true.

the people who defended the guy here are generally liberals (Ty and SS). I, for one, don't think he should have been fired, but neither should rush or Dusty Baker or Charles Barkley or Jimmy the Greek.....
I was just trying to show that there is hypocracy in defending the guy as being different than Rush's case.

Actually if you look back there were liberals (me included) that said that what Rush said was not really that bad. But I'm sure you are right that all liberals oppose free speech. I do not cry for Rush because his schpeil is being inflamatory and given enough time he would have said something else to hang himself. I bet ESPN even acknowledged that internally when they made the decision to axe him. He was never an appropriate spokesperson for the network.

[ms. naughty diplomat]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
How can this be? All boys want sex.

And rhyming about turning tricks seems inconsistent with an "abstinence" message.

obviously, all boys are icky. admittedly, some boys are more icky than others, but there is nothing inconsistant about the former miss vermont's bad poetry as far as boys who want sex.

now the "abstinence" message on the other hand. her past association with a certain well-known cad renders that inconsistant. and the bad poetry doesn't help.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive

I do not cry for Rush because his schpeil is being inflamatory and given enough time he would have said something else to hang himself. I bet ESPN even acknowledged that internally when they made the decision to axe him. He was never an appropriate spokesperson for the network.

There is a difference between "hanging oneself" and just not being right for the job.
Rush wasn't fired once hiring him was seen as a mistake due to his complete lack of ability to add anything. He was fired for saying something "offensive."
If he had been fired, because people found him a total windbag without knowledge of the game, who only detracted and added nothing, okay*. He wasn't.
I wouldn't care if he was fired because his comment re. McNair showed an ignorance of the game. The fact is he was fired because he showed an ignorance of PC rules. The difference is perhaps subtle, and he is a boob either way, and I've even learned to live in a world where you can't say certain non-PC things without screwing yourself. All I want is for the rules to apply both ways. Once they do, there will be less of a feeding frenzy re. every verbal screw up, and the Nation can get past the fixation.

n.b. do not take this as an endorsement for dismissing Bill Walton from all b-ball broadcast duties.

[ms. naughty diplomat]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Who can say? The old stuff is all gone. Are you implying that SEF and its ilk do not exist?

so i guess that means no more justforfun posts either? at least the old sf/sv board is preserving her "erica" posts.

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
There is a difference between "hanging oneself" and just not being right for the job.
Rush wasn't fired once hiring him was seen as a mistake due to his complete lack of ability to add anything. He was fired for saying something "offensive."
If he had been fired, because people found him a total windbag without knowledge of the game, who only detracted and added nothing, okay*. He wasn't.
I wouldn't care if he was fired because his comment re. McNair showed an ignorance of the game. The fact is he was fired because he showed an ignorance of PC rules. The difference is perhaps subtle, and he is a boob either way, and I've even learned to live in a world where you can't say certain non-PC things without screwing yourself. All I want is for the rules to apply both ways. Once they do, there will be less of a feeding frenzy re. every verbal screw up, and the Nation can get past the fixation.

n.b. do not take this as an endorsement for dismissing Bill Walton from all b-ball broadcast duties.

You want rules to apply both ways? THat seems fair. Seems like that should mean that people have a right to criticize a sitting president that they don't agree with regardless of whether he is a Dem or a Republican. Oh, wait, that isn't quite right is it?*




*See The Dixie Chicks

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by ms. naughty diplomat
so i guess that means no more justforfun posts either? at least the old sf/sv board is preserving her "erica" posts.

Oh yeah, like she was the only one to have a negative sign (that's left of "0" for the math impaired) on the fluffy-like extremist stuff on these boards.

Its funny to think of all the extremist lefties that have been chased off politics with logic, wit, pitchforks, insults and common sense. Surely a far greater number of defeated leftists than defeated good people. Notwithstanding that crazy guy towards the end at the old politics board.

Well, I guess it ain't like the dearly departed in Saving Private Ryan. I can't remember any of their names, let alone what their words looked like.

Except for that delightful Callum Greyshaw. That is still my favorite internet moment of the last 2 years. Even better than waking up and seeing one of your stocks up 50% before the open.

Hello

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
You want rules to apply both ways? THat seems fair. Seems like that should mean that people have a right to criticize a sitting president that they don't agree with regardless of whether he is a Dem or a Republican. Oh, wait, that isn't quite right is it?*




*See The Dixie Chicks

I really really think this one has been done to death, but okay.
Those who disagree with the President* have every right to "disagree." The Dixie Chicks are real Americans, althought maybe not normal americans because only 33% have an obesity problem, whereas 50% of normal Americans are overweight. I digress.
Other real Americans have the right to not buy the Dixie Chicks records or concert tickets** because they might want to limit the public forums that the Dixie Chicks might have.*** We support celebrities and so they have access to microphones in front of people. They didn't get their sucess due to a demonstrated knowledge of foreign policy. They do not necessarially have any greater insight into issues such as Iraq, than say my children. For me to hope people boycott these nuts to limit future microphone access isn't inconsistant with anything I've said here, there or anywhere.
*not former Presidents, though. Carter is a moron.
** distinguish not seeing a susan Sarandon movie, (my choice about what I do- okay) from Baseball Hall of Fame President deciding Robbins/Sarandon won't appear there (his choice about what I can see- not okay)
*** this is all largely hypothetical for me, because everyone I would want to boycott, I have no desire to see or listen to.

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
For me to hope people boycott these nuts to limit future microphone access isn't inconsistant with anything I've said here, there or anywhere.

How about this:

"the conservatives on this board (and elsewhere) are the true supporters of free speech."

Just as an example. And it wasn't just the Kentucky blue grass fans that were (if I may use a technical term) freaking out. Actual elected republicans were claiming that The Dixie Chicks owed the president and our troups an apology. For what exactly? For wishing Bush was not from their home state? Sounds treasonous.

Seems like at the very least those conservatives are not "the true supporters of free speech." Maybe you mean only certain conservatives are.

An example: http://www.scgop.com/press/release.asp?prid=42
A story about it: http://www.counterpunch.org/dixie05172003.html

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
How about this:

"the conservatives on this board (and elsewhere) are the true supporters of free speech."

just hyperbole, yes?
classic politics board style
please relax now, yes?

[ms. naughty diplomat]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Oh yeah, like she was the only one to have a negative sign (that's left of "0" for the math impaired) on the fluffy-like extremist stuff on these boards.

you actually think that justforfun was actually conservative? i'm guessing that she isn't because no conservative woman would respond to any criticism of her by calling it misogynstic and rant on and on about sexism. or for that matter call guys who told her to shut up rapists like justforfun did. i think you got duped.

[rufus leeking]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
It may have been so long ago that it seems like it never happened, but presumably, at some point, you learned that some crimes require some form of "intent".

actually, the crime you are talking about here is using the boxcutter to take over the plane- right?, bigger problem for prosecutors is the act didn't occur. but the act of smuggling the boxcutter must be punished. its a hard enough task to find as much as we do find without people adding to the burden. plus, when caught it has to be some crime. Atta II can keep trying to smuggle boxcutters on, and when he gets caught just say, "Just testing"......... until he gets on with them.
Or are you suggesting a different approach here because the college kid is white?

...............Anyway, I'm not saying that he's not actually guilty of some felony or other. I'm just saying that if they can give him a job for $8.00 per hour so they can hear his theories before they have to search 8000 planes, he might be able to help them avoid, well, searching 8000 planes.

boot that. Let's hire Moussai. he was trained for this crap. It'll be like in Catch me if You Can. saving the cost of his trial will more than save up for his salary. plus everyone knows once we give $$$ to the Jihadiis they'll come around.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by ms. naughty diplomat
you actually think that justforfun was actually conservative? i'm guessing that she isn't because no conservative woman would respond to any criticism of her by calling it misogynstic and rant on and on about sexism. or for that matter call guys who told her to shut up rapists like justforfun did. i think you got duped.

Ugh, I said:

"Oh yeah, like she was the only one to have a negative sign (that's left of "0" for the math impaired) on the fluffy-like extremist stuff on these boards."

Note, the above-noted statement impliedly noted that I have noted that Jff was 'left of "0"', based upon my mental notations. In response to my note, you impliedly note that Jff should not be noted as one who is "right of "0"', contrary to what Hello has notably noted. I now note that I have noted that you may not always comprehend math notations and analogies very well. Duly noted. FWIW, FYI, I will defenetely avoid things like imaginary numbers around you.


Signed

Not Puffy

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by rufus leeking
actually, the crime you are talking about here is using the boxcutter to take over the plane- right?, bigger problem for prosecutors is the act didn't occur. but the act of smuggling the boxcutter must be punished. its a hard enough task to find as much as we do find without people adding to the burden. plus, when caught it has to be some crime. Atta II can keep trying to smuggle boxcutters on, and when he gets caught just say, "Just testing"......... until he gets on with them.
Or are you suggesting a different approach here because the college kid is white?

And then there is "attempt". And who said it doesn't have "to be some crime"? Who you arguing with crazy?

Atta II? Uhm, sure, if he emails us 4 times and tells us what he is going to do! And if the putty is fake! FWIW, I'd feel more strongly about my position if the box cutters were sans-blades but, at best, it was just recklessness.

I was surprised to see some muckety-muck advocating my position on CNN last night 90 minutes after I put it up here. Hmm. Wasn't me, but that guy sure sounded politically smart.

Originally posted by rufus leeking

boot that. Let's hire Moussai. he was trained for this crap. It'll be like in Catch me if You Can. saving the cost of his trial will more than save up for his salary. plus everyone knows once we give $$$ to the Jihadiis they'll come around.

If he can tell us anything that we don't otherwise know (and go ahead, tell me that we knew what the kid did), than sure. Is there any indication that he is, uhm, actually willing to cooperate? That house of cards you built has a pretty leeky roof there pal. Ima just start calling you crazy, mmkay?

Hello

[sgtclub]

Wow! Everybody is sure firing up this morning. Usually I have to scour the net to find something remotely contraversial to get anybody to post before noon.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
the conservatives on this board (and elsewhere) are the true supporters of free speech. the people who defended the guy here are generally liberals (Ty and SS). I, for one, don't think he should have been fired, but neither should rush or Dusty Baker or Charles Barkley or Jimmy the Greek.....

Um, what? I didn't defend the guy. I suggested that Disney did not have its fiduciary duties to me (as a shareholder) in mind when they fired him.

As for Rush, I said that he was wrong. If you think the media hypes black QBs, consider Jake Plummer and Steve McNair.

Arguing against the liberals is easy if you can just make up what they say.