quote:The things that radical Muslims hate about the United States, apart from their simple jealousy of our wealth and power, are the aspects of American culture that are absolutely the product of the influence of the extremist Left.
Abortion. Sexual promiscuity. Pornography. Open support of homosexuality. Hostility to religion. Denigration of the male sex.
My fellow American,
You are now drifting into territory that is beyond the sanity of anyone's shared reality. In a time of war and hate, you are now accusing 100 million Americans of inventing a good number of the things that flew out from Pandora's broken box.
Can you really, in your mind, lump so many now living people against a 30 billion people back drop of history, and accuse them of some of Earth's greatest of sins?
Is this the finest of Wisdoms that my father's generation has to offer?
Posts: 2752 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
They do hate Europeans. Remember Madrid? The United States remain the "Great Satan," however because we are far more powerful and our presence is felt more profoundly around the globe. Particularlly our military presence in Saudi Arabia.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was under the impression that the biggest thing radical Muslims hate is the fact that we are INVADING THEIR LANDS. It certainly is not the radical left that is responsible for that.
In fact, I don't think I've ever heard Osama bin Laden say anything in any speech about abortion, or pornography, or acceptance of homosexuality. But he has definitely complained a lot about the invasion of Iraq, U.S. military buildup in the middle eastern region, and our desire to control the Middle East - all things that are products of radical neoconservatives, not radical liberals.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually bin Laden has complained about our "moral decay" and "aetheism." Of course, I couldn't give a damn about his standards one way or the other.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, but he hasn't listed off the liberal issues OSC is talking about any more so than more conservative forms of moral decay - such as corporate greed, free market consumerism, or intolerance of the Muslim religion by Christian extremists.
OSC is putting words into the mouths of Muslim extremists in an effort to bend over backwards to blame liberals, when in reality it's rather clear from released tapes and statements that the thing Muslim extremists hate about America the most is the way we try to interfere with the Middle East.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think he's putting words in the mouths' of Muslim extremists, I just don't think we should care what Muslim extremists say, except to use what they against them that.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it would be better to put a link to the full article so we can read the statements in their context rather than dog piling over a few sentences in isolation.
Could someone put the link up before this thread goes too much further?
Here's the greatest irony of all. The things that radical Muslims hate about the United States, apart from their simple jealousy of our wealth and power, are the aspects of American culture that are absolutely the product of the influence of the extremist Left.
Abortion. Sexual promiscuity. Pornography. Open support of homosexuality. Hostility to religion. Denigration of the male sex.
These are the things that radical Islam hates most about America, the reasons they use when they warn fellow Muslims against allowing Western culture to influence them.
Yet, in Al Qaeda's effort to install Osama Bin Laden (or, if he dies, some like-minded successor) as Caliph of all Islam, they find it useful to promote extreme Leftist governments in Western nations.
Why? Because they know Leftist governments won't fight them.
They know John Kerry will hand them the victory they can't win against a determined America.
Ultimately, they believe that Leftist governments will behave in such a way that the Leftist agenda can be swept away and replaced by Shari'a.
Such might be the result of hypocrisy and cynicism in America.
posted
I suspect that this essay would be more convincing if it didn't use terms like "econazis" to denigrate the opposing viewpoint.
The flap over Mark Halperin's memo to ABC staffers is a center point in this essay. It establishes the reason for attacking Kerry's lies to make them seem obviously worse than Bush's lies. So that the media bias can be exposed.
However, this viewpoint isn't really fair because: 1) It ignores the candidates' records and attacks the messenger 2) It doesn't take into account the reputation or track record of that messenger (Mark Halperin)
We aren't offered any facts to show us how Kerry's lies and distortions are equal to or worse than Bush's.
ABC is standing by Halperin in the post-memo frenzy saying that anyone who has worked with him (including conservatives) will know his record for unbiased reporting, etc., etc.
Now, that may or may not be disputed by the right, but I couldn't find anything saying "this guy is always taking sides." What they are saying is that a strangely worded memo is proof positive of a left-leaning bias in the news media overall. Then they cite one or two ambiguous lines from the memo.
USA Today reported on an analysis of this issue here: http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/life/20041011/mediamix11.art.htm And found that there's some evidence of bias in most news organizations coverage of the first debate (Halperin's memo came out just before the debates), but that it seems to have evened out somewhat as things progressed. Not a lot to indicate a severe bias, however.
It's at the bottom of Drudge's analysis. If you follow HIS link, you can see a jpg that's almost unreadable.
Sadly, Halperin doesn't state in his memo which of Bush's lies and distortions he finds to be worse than the lies and distortions that Kerry's camp is putting out. That might've been interesting.
The funniest part of all this is that both sides are now arguing over which candidates lies and distortions are the least harmful. Not which candidate is capable of telling the truth, but which one is the more benign liar.
If I weren't an American, I would be laughing.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
I'm not sure what he does in his spare time, but if you read his memo, I'm sure you'll agree that he's not much of a writer.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
*screams and feels like banging her head against the wall* That is something simular to something ANN COULTER would say. The Muslims do NOT hate the US out of jealousy. That is too simple. There are historical factors to consider. She said something about killing their leaders and converting them to Christianity, but isn't that what they fear? Wouldn't that attitude CREATE more terrorists? Oh, I really can't take much more of this. Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
This article is an example of the reason why people have been attacking OSC's political essays. Nothing he wrote there would survive the scrutiny as a post in this forum. From the very first paragraph it starts making up stuff about John Kerry and giving virtually no evidence to back it up.
As for the Halperin memo, Halperin was right on the matter. It IS the responsibility of a news organization to not artificially make both sides appear to be lying equally when one is lying significantly more than the other. To do so encourages lying more than the opposition, because there is no penalty for doing so. It should be fairly clear that a lie about there being WMDs in Iraq (which your entire campaign and Iraq war is based upon) is far more significant than a lie about the Iraq War costing $200 million already when it has only costed $120 million (a minor claim that barely effects the larger Kerry platform.) But the media has artificially placed lies like this side-to-side, making them appear to be equivalently bad. When the debates occured, the major media stations usually always presented equal numbers of mistruths from both sides, regardless of which side actually misled us more.
So, why is it we can't trust candidates to tell us the truth? It's because the media artificial neutrality encourages lying. The media should be biased towards whichever candidate is telling the truth more, because the media is supposed to be truthful.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
*angry enough to explode* How can he miss the fact that- A lot of people who claim to be on the right have cheated on their wives, yet turn around and complain about OTHER people cheating... grah! *gets frustrated and tries to restrain myself from commenting anymore*
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
About Mark Helprin(Wrote "A Soldier of the great War"), am I dreaming or he did not write the inaugural poem? I will go check, but I see that they are not the same person. It is just strange that the two names are so similar. At first, I thought Bob or OSC ad misspelled it.
Here is a link to an article he wrote, so at least he is involved in politics as far as giving his opinion. I cannot find a link to his poem, but by gum, I think he wrote it.
All of which really has nothing much to do with this discussion, sorry.
Edit one last time to say, "No wonder I could not find the inaugural poem: there wasn't one!" Bush decided to forego the tradition. I swear, though, Mark Helprin was involved in that inauguration.
[ October 24, 2004, 01:48 PM: Message edited by: Elizabeth ]
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:This article is an example of the reason why people have been attacking OSC's political essays. Nothing he wrote there would survive the scrutiny as a post in this forum. From the very first paragraph it starts making up stuff about John Kerry and giving virtually no evidence to back it up.
Not that I agree with OSC in this essay, but keep in mind it wasn't a post on Hatrack, it's a published column, he can't go through and site links and back everything he says, there's a limited amount of column space and he wants normal people to want to read it.
quote:How can he miss the fact that- A lot of people who claim to be on the right have cheated on their wives, yet turn around and complain about OTHER people cheating... grah!
If you stopped holding set of beliefs because other's who espouse those beliefs are hypocrits, you're going to run out of things to believe awful fast.
quote:So basicly OSC is saying that voting Republican is bowing down to the radical"Muslim" agenda.
Well I suppose it would be, but only if he stopped there, he goes onto say that actually the radical Muslims are rooting for Kerry. Not saying I agree (or disagree) but he does specifically mention this point.
quote:Not that I agree with OSC in this essay, but keep in mind it wasn't a post on Hatrack, it's a published column, he can't go through and site links and back everything he says, there's a limited amount of column space and he wants normal people to want to read it.
It's not a matter of not citing links, which isn't necessary in Hatrack posts either. It's a matter of the things he's saying being either flatly wrong or being based purely on his opinion. It's a matter of being able to support his claims if he had to. And it's a matter of using reasoned argument rather than rhetorical attacks.
In this article, OSC claims not only to know what Kerry is thinking but also that he is deliberately lying. He puts words into the mouth of Muslim extremists that they never said, and conveniently overlooks the words they actually did say. He blames liberals for things that any objective observer would easily see existed long before liberalism or even America did. He says Kerry has no principles, contradicting earlier claims of his own about Kerry's liberal principles. He takes quotes out of Halperin's memo and misinterprets in a way that is reminiscient of Karl Rove's (or Michael Moore's) style. He says Kerry's "lies" would "easily" be refuted by "any reporter" who is "minimally aware" of what is going on in Iraq - which is blatantly untrue, given what he said himself about the media agreeing with Kerry. He accuses the Kerry campaign of creating "false fear" without mentioning Bush has done this even more. And worst of all, he says "Kerry and Edwards over and over again call George W. Bush a liar, even though they can cite no instance of Bush knowingly making a statement contrary to fact," when in fact Kerry has refused to call Bush a liar up to now and has been able to cite many times in which Bush misled the public. And so on....
No links should be necessary for the reader to see why all these claims are unbased.
quote:It's not a matter of not citing links, which isn't necessary in Hatrack posts either. It's a matter of the things he's saying being either flatly wrong or being based purely on his opinion. It's a matter of being able to support his claims if he had to.
posted
"...absolutely the product of the influence of the extremist Left." Let's see...
Abortion - There are pro-choice conservatives, although I don't know if OSC is aware of them. There are people with different opinions about abortion all through the political spectrum. I know from previous columns that OSC blames liberal activist judges for forcing abortion rights on America without putting it through a legislative process, and this may be so. But claiming that abortion is legal solely due to liberal influence is absurd.
Sexual promiscuity - Not sure why this is a liberal cause. I don't remember seeing it on any flyers. So what root causes of promiscuity do liberals support? Birth control (or, rather, easy access to birth control)? Guilty. No-fault divorce? I'd agree. Sex in movies, TV and advertising? Nope, that would be free-market commercialism. The adage "sex sells" is as old as time and companies produce what people buy. Comprehensive sex education in schools? Show me the studies that prove it encourages promiscuity, and see how results fare over abstinence-only education. If you can find any such studies, that is. The only one I know of got hidden on the Surgeon General's Web site, right after the Surgeon General in question resigned. He was probably sick of the liberal agenda. Maybe it's just the liberal suggestion that people should be comfortable talking about sex openly. I have to say I think it's a good thing.
Pornography - Yup, we're all over it. The open enjoyment of sexual material can be seen as a sign of loosening morals and the embrace of depravity. It can also be seen as a maturing country that is ready to stop treating the human body as something sinful. Me, I think it's somewhere in the middle. I'd like to see more protection to keep pornography away from children and people who don't wish to see it, but I don't want to see eroticism completely taken out of all media, either. Now if someone wanted to start trying to restrict depictions of abuse, nonconsensual sex, or the denigration of a sexual partner, I'd be interested.
Open support of homosexuality - Open support of homosexuals, anyway, which isn't exactly the same thing but close enough for government work. Yup, liberals are there. Well, some of them, there are plenty of liberals who fear the acceptance of homosexuality and how it will affect society. There are also conservative supporters, by the way. Talk to Andrew Sullivan sometime, or the Log Cabin Republicans.
Hostility to religion - To religion? No. To the application of religion in secular situations? Yup. And now I'll back away and admit, yes, there is a hostility towards religion present in this country that isn't rooted in reason, and I won't try to defend it.
Denigration of the male sex - an unfortunate outgrowth of several situations: women of all social strata experienced amazing freedoms in the last century. All of a sudden, seemingly, they could own property, vote, divorce without condemnation, control or prevent their own pregnancies, and even hold a job. Out of this incredible social upheaval came two movements, one public, one not. Feminism strode forward to demand equal rights and equal pay for women doing equal work. Extremists in the feminist movement went on to claim that all sex was rape, that women who weren't in the workforce were willing slaves,and other such ridiculous statements that colored all other feminists for years. And many men reacted badly. Men that were used to being in charge, to being able to control their marriage, to being able to treat women as second-class citizens for so long that this new equality thing was utterly incomprehensible to them. There was a backlash. The two extremes are fighting still, and the rest of us are suffering from it. Add to that a few minor things, such as the invention of the bumbling husband in situation comedies and the concept of the "deadbeat dad," and the "sensitive" guy that everyone was supposedly looking for in the 80's.
Liberal causes, all? Not hardly. Some were inevitable outgrowths of personal freedoms, freeodms that were gained at the same time that personal responsibility began to lose emphasis. Some are situations that arose from several causes but can be easily laid at the feet of liberals who are proud to claim responsibility.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The other irony I have to point out here is a personal one. I stopped watching the war coverage BECAUSE it was so blatantly pro-Bush. Did I miss a switch here somewhere? The last time I watched war coverage on teevee, it was all from embedded reporters and all they could tell us was what the military wanted them to. It was so rah-rah pro-war I kept wondering if they were going to regret losing their independent voice.
Did they finally wake up? Is that what's bugging conservatives? That there's some negative reportage now?
I mean, there's a lot to report, isn't there?
- prisoner abuse - body counts - unseasoned/untrained Iraqi troops as allies - etc.
Maybe the problem is that in the middle of all that news, they'd like to see a few pieces on how great the schools are and that utilities have been reconnected for neighborhoods blasted by the war?
I really don't get it. The press has been anything but negative about Bush all through this war, and now the Conservatives have turned on them saying that the reporting of bad news is evidence of a bias. The evidence of a bias goes back to day one of this conflict and even prior. Back when no one asked the President the tough questions like "where's your evidence of WMD or that Saddam was linked to al Qaida?" Never heard that asked once. And it continued all through the conflict right up to covering his photo-op on the aircraft carrier "mission Accomplished" emblazoned on the bridge behind him.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: But that's the chief tool of Kerry's campaign: False fear.
I love that he says this when the Bush administration is running around going, "OMG TERROR ALERT YELLOW!!"
Posts: 4816 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Back when no one asked the President the tough questions like "where's your evidence of WMD or that Saddam was linked to al Qaida?" Never heard that asked once.
Statements like this frighten me. Not that a little hyperbole is a bad thing, but I would expect someone attacking an article primarily for misrepresenting and exagerating certain facts would be careful to avoid the semblance of it.
You're honestly telling me you never heard anyone question Bush or the Administration about these things before the war? Not once.
Either you have a very faulty memory, you purposely avoided serious commentary leading up to the war, you're exagerating/lying for effect, or you're taking cover in the fact that probably no one used that exact wording, and likely no one asked a single question expressing both queries in that sentence.
Seriously. Not once? What papers do you read, which news sites do you visit, and what shows do you watch/listen to?
posted
Do you buy gasoline? Then you're part and parcel to what radical Muslims hate about America. Just like wearing Nike and complaining about sweat shops.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Back when no one asked the President the tough questions like "where's your evidence of WMD or that Saddam was linked to al Qaida?"
Really, Bob? No one asked this? You were unsatisfied prior to the war that those things didn't exist? You saw no evidence that was credible?
That's just nonsense. It's nonsense for the simple reason that the people who are most upset about the absence of WMD now are saying so-now. They certainly weren't saying so before.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
edit== I'll rephrase my statement to appease the doggedly literal-minded among us: I recall that not enough reporters demanded proof of WMDs from the President.
Before you start accusing me of lying, perhaps it'd be good to show where you thought such reporting existed. It's hard for me to go back and show where it didn't happen when I expected it, obviously.
I just recall press conference after press conference where the president was NOT asked where the evidence was. And it seemed to me as if anyone who did ask was branded some sort of traitor. It's the emperor's new clothes only with lethal consequences as far as I'm concerned.
Perhaps you can point us to the raft of serious discussions that took place.
I recall Colin Powell trying to get the Administration to give diplomacy another try, but that was soon squelched. What we had, night after night, was reporters showing what the Administration would show us, and repeating the statement that to show us anything else would harm intelligence assets.
Not nearly enough when you consider that we were heading into a war of pre-emption.
How about I rephrase it then -- the press was far too much on his side in the build up to the war. It was certainly biased and the bias was in his favor. And it lasted all through the conflict up to at least the point where he donned a flight suit and told us "mission accomplished."
quote:That's just nonsense. It's nonsense for the simple reason that the people who are most upset about the absence of WMD now are saying so-now. They certainly weren't saying so before.
Um Dag, I'm one of the people who is most upset about the WMDs. And I was one of the people asking for the President to show us the evidence back when he hoodwinked us into this war in the first place.
I have posts here on Hatrack to prove it.
Since your assertion is wrong in at least one case that you should've been well aware of, it must be wrong in all cases by the logical standard you wish to apply to my post.
Shall we go back into the Hatrack archives to prove that I was right all along or will you take my word for it that I thought he was misleading us from day 1?
ABORTION - You will find that almost all people are against abortion. The difference is that people on the Right want to illegalize it, thinking that this will end all abortion.
I believe the only true abortion solution is education, good parenting and people living as good, smart proper choice making people.
Want to know the real IRONY?
ALL across the board Abortions have gone, up, up and up! under George W. Bush's watch!!!!!
Why? Because the main events tide into abortion are POVERTY!!!
The poorer people get the more abortions there will be!
SEXUAL PROMISCUITY - How on Earth is he pinning this one on the lefties???? America is a capitalist nation and SEX sells everything!!! Is OSC really saying that Republicans are either Virgins or People who have only had sex with one person, their spouses and the lefties are a bunch of orgy-ists???
Pornography. Yuck. I hate porn as much as anyone, i think it's gross, sick and evil. How on Earth could OSC accuse the Lefties of being the Pornogrophy party???? I've never heard this issue being discussed in a public forum. And let's be honest, people's porn uses and addictions are usually done ALONE, so know one really knows who the porn junkies are???
This shows how flawed OSC's judgement is.
OPEN SUPPORT OF HOMOSEXUALITY - Well, in the face of Republicans who HATE them and like to treat them like evil beings, yes, we lefties do support homosexuals as REGULAR PEOPLE!
I believe this subject is for God to judge, but a lot of Rightys either talk directly to God, or are God's themselves so they are allowed to throw stones, or toss people into lakes of fire.
I go back to my old question, why are Gays any worse than Divorceees? Why don't Righties spend large amounts of time talking about how evil divorcees are??? Are y'all reading a different Bible than mine?
NOTE: I am all for Homosexual Unions, which hold the same rights as married couples, but am Against Gays getting "married".
The Marriage is defined in the Bible, so it should be allowed to stay as defined.
Gays should be able to get unionized, enjoy the same privelages as married couples, but would have to come up with their own clever term for their union.
Hostility to religion.
Religion is not God. God is God. Jesus is Jesus. and Religion is Religion. Those who are mega religious view their religion as god, and expect others to do the same.
I must remind you.
Jesus gave two commandments.
#1 Love God above all else. #2 Love your neighbor as your brother.
Notice no mention of Religion?
I refuse to treat Religion as an Equal to GOD, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit.
Does this mean that OSC is standing up and fighting for the Rastafarians? Christians who are not allowed to practice their religions properly here in the USA????
heh.
Religion has created a billion more crimes than Jesus/GOD.
Denigration of the male sex.
What does this even mean?????
It sounds like OSC hates the Left as much as Osama hates Americans.
quote: Days before the Iraq war began, veteran Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus put together a story questioning whether the Bush administration had proof that Saddam Hussein was hiding weapons of mass destruction.
But he ran into resistance from the paper's editors, and his piece ran only after assistant managing editor Bob Woodward, who was researching a book about the drive toward war, "helped sell the story," Pincus recalled. "Without him, it would have had a tough time getting into the paper." Even so, the article was relegated to Page A17.
quote:On Sept. 19, 2002, reporter Joby Warrick described a report "by independent experts who question whether thousands of high-strength aluminum tubes recently sought by Iraq were intended for a secret nuclear weapons program," as the administration was contending. The story ran on Page A18.
quote:Not all such stories were pushed inside the paper. A follow-up Warrick piece on the aluminum tubes did run on Page 1 the following January, two months before the war began. And The Post gave front-page play to a Sept. 10, 2002, story by Priest contending that "the CIA has yet to find convincing evidence" linking Hussein and al Qaeda.
quote: "Despite the Bush administration's claims" about WMDs, the March 16 Pincus story began, "U.S. intelligence agencies have been unable to give Congress or the Pentagon specific information about the amounts of banned weapons or where they are hidden, according to administration officials and members of Congress," raising questions "about whether administration officials have exaggerated intelligence."
Woodward said he wished he had appealed to Downie to get front-page play for the story, rather than standing by as it ended up on Page A17. In that period, said former national security editor Vita, "we were dealing with an awful lot of stories, and that was one of the ones that slipped through the cracks." Spayd did not recall the debate.
The quotes above are form the linked article, which does NOT make the case that media coverage and questioning of the administration was good. Yet these are clear counterpoints from a single source showing that there was at least one (and here, at least 3) such articles questioning it.
And your rephrasing is fine. But I don't consider it either nit-picking or being "doggedly literal-minded" to insist on a clarification between there being NO questioning of the administration and there being too little questioning. Especially in a thread attacking OSC's article in the same fashion.
Thanks for the clarification. I even agree with the statement, "I recall that not enough reporters demanded proof of WMDs from the President."
Dagonee
P.S., Bob, Rakeesh said "That's just nonsense. It's nonsense for the simple reason...", not me. But, the mere fact you doubted the case from day one, as did MILLIONS of Americans, shows that the case against the war was out there, even if it wan't covered perfectly. I would appreciate it if you could correct the post, though. Thanks.
quote: ABORTION - You will find that almost all people are against abortion. The difference is that people on the Right want to illegalize it, thinking that this will end all abortion.
I believe the only true abortion solution is education, good parenting and people living as good, smart proper choice making people.
There are plenty of people who are not against abortion, but positively in favor of abortion for a variety fo reasons. To ignore their viewpoints to make a point in a discussion here seems a little bit off the mark to me. If abortion is legal, people will still have them. If abortion is illegal, people will still have them, but some people will be deterred because of fear of botched operations, lack of money to go across the border, or other concerns.
quote:
Want to know the real IRONY?
ALL across the board Abortions have gone, up, up and up! under George W. Bush's watch!!!!!
Why? Because the main events tide into abortion are POVERTY!!!
The poorer people get the more abortions there will be!
We should be looking at data here. Poverty hasn't really been the driving force in abortion statistics the times I've looked at it in the past. Maybe that's changed, but I suspect that it's still middle class women who have the highest rate of abortion per capita. There might be something going on there related to the economy (or fears for the future), but I suspect there's lots of other factors involved.
But some stats would be nice before we go too far down this road.
quote:
SEXUAL PROMISCUITY - How on Earth is he pinning this one on the lefties???? America is a capitalist nation and SEX sells everything!!! Is OSC really saying that Republicans are either Virgins or People who have only had sex with one person, their spouses and the lefties are a bunch of orgy-ists???
I don't want to put words in OSC's mouth, but I suspect that he would view the sexual revoluation as a left-leaning issue of putting individual's rights over the "good of society" or some such discussion. The Right has tried to co-opt religion (and religion-based thinking) as the province of conservatives. I suppose since most religions have a conservative message that there might be something to this, but the obvious point is that preaching a good game isn't really enough. If you're going to use morality as a stance in your governance, you'd better be sure your leaders are up to the task or you'll get laughed out of town.
quote:
Pornography. Yuck. I hate porn as much as anyone, i think it's gross, sick and evil. How on Earth could OSC accuse the Lefties of being the Pornogrophy party???? I've never heard this issue being discussed in a public forum. And let's be honest, people's porn uses and addictions are usually done ALONE, so know one really knows who the porn junkies are???
Interesting attitude you have here. I mean, there are people who would point out that adult oriented entertainments are not really the province of government. If a person wants to melt their mind with porn 24/7, that's their business. I think the conservatives leave themselves open for attack on this one primarily because they are normally so vociferous in complaining about government being too intrusive. There's nothing more intrusive than controlling the sexual behavior of adults, and yet the are clammoring for this kind of government guidance. It's highly inconsistent with the true conservative movement in this country (as exemplified by the Republican party up to about 20 years ago), seems to me. It makes sense from the religious conservative point of view. Which is what the new Republican party seems to have become.
quote:
This shows how flawed OSC's judgement is.
OPEN SUPPORT OF HOMOSEXUALITY - Well, in the face of Republicans who HATE them and like to treat them like evil beings, yes, we lefties do support homosexuals as REGULAR PEOPLE!
Again, this is religion based conservatism, not traditional Republicanism. But the use of the word "hate" in your position is too extreme, I think. I don't believe for an instant that, in general, Republicans with gay and lesbian sons & daughters hate them. I don't think people jettison their friends over this kind of thing.
The debate here is over whether we're talking basic human rights or "special rights" to a small minority of the population, based on a factor that is either in their makeup or of their own choosing.
It's not as simple as you make it sound.
Still, the conservatives know they don't have much of a leg to stand on in a country that has a constitution that is intended to guarantee basics to all people. This makes them angry not becasue they hate homosexuals, but because it erodes their base among religious conservatives who demand unworkable laws restricting things that come down to basic Constitutional issues. And it's been a losing proposition at every turn.
quote:
I believe this subject is for God to judge, but a lot of Rightys either talk directly to God, or are God's themselves so they are allowed to throw stones, or toss people into lakes of fire.
I go back to my old question, why are Gays any worse than Divorceees? Why don't Righties spend large amounts of time talking about how evil divorcees are??? Are y'all reading a different Bible than mine?
Not everyone is reading the bible in order to make decisions about how best to govern a pluralistic society. One might suggest that an alternative approach, derived from a perfectly workable constitution, would be better for all concerned.
quote:
NOTE: I am all for Homosexual Unions, which hold the same rights as married couples, but am Against Gays getting "married".
The Marriage is defined in the Bible, so it should be allowed to stay as defined.
Gays should be able to get unionized, enjoy the same privelages as married couples, but would have to come up with their own clever term for their union.
See above. Plus, we have a poor record, constitution-wise, with "separate but equal" institutions in this country. If we're going to have civil benefits accrue to married couples, we have to make it open to all without forcing them into a mode "acceptable to Christians" in the process.
quote:
Hostility to religion.
Religion is not God. God is God. Jesus is Jesus. and Religion is Religion. Those who are mega religious view their religion as god, and expect others to do the same.
I must remind you.
Jesus gave two commandments.
#1 Love God above all else. #2 Love your neighbor as your brother.
Notice no mention of Religion?
I refuse to treat Religion as an Equal to GOD, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit.
Does this mean that OSC is standing up and fighting for the Rastafarians? Christians who are not allowed to practice their religions properly here in the USA????
heh.
Religion has created a billion more crimes than Jesus/GOD.
While I tend to agree that organized religion has not been a 100% positive force in the world, I think you're missing the mark again. The point of religious conservatives is that the government has fostered an inconsistent attitude about religion's role in society. We have government money going into displays of some religions, but not others. We've got a Supreme Court building with religious symbols (including the 10 commandments) all over it, but we don't allow local judges to display those same 10 commandments.
We're in a painful period in our country.
quote:
Denigration of the male sex.
What does this even mean?????
It sounds like OSC hates the Left as much as Osama hates Americans.
quote:I'm glad i'm not as "religious" as he is.
Thank you Jesus!
The parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector comes to mind as a cautionary note about this holier than thou stuff.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
You are too literal minded. It's okay though. If I can dish it out, I should be able to take it. And I don't see OSC's opinion piece as lacking merely in specificity, but it is one of the things I attacked it for. Ah well..
But I was mostly miffed at being hinted at that I might be a liar (you) or having my statement called "nonsense" (I thought that was you, but it was Rakeesh -- oops).
I'm seeing a lot of vindication in what you posted, and so really have to agree that my point wasn't that NO-ONE was doing it (questioning the Administration on WMDs) but that it wasn't being done to my satisfaction.
Which is, of course, a much harder thing to gauge the truth of.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that, based on what has come out, we see most of the (fact based) criticism was in branches of the government controlled by the administration, and that the administration was very careful to prevent the degree of the dissension, and in some cases the mere presence of the dissension, from coming to the attention of anyone outside the administration, instead downplaying or ignoring it.
A prime example of this is with the aluminum tubes, where the energy department had a much stronger case for the meaning of the aluminum tubes which didn't relate to nuclear weaponry at all, whereas the CIA case for them being used in centrifuges was based on refuted evidence (identicality to a centrifuge design posed somewhere) and silly assumptions (that Iraq would use these tubes instead of the much better centrifuge technologies they were already known to possess). The only case Congress and the public really heard was the CIA's, which was presented with even more certainty than the CIA was willing to commit to, and the energy department's case was hardly mentioned, with it being referred to like the opinion of a small group of dissenters, when in fact every nuclear scientist in the energy department was in agreement as to the most probable interpretation of the facts by far, and the CIA had not a single nuclear scientist backing their position, merely an analyst with some nuclear technician work with a type of centrifuge completely different from the sort Saddam was allegedly trying to build.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And, let me guess... a rose is a rose? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, roses are tulips now. They had to change it because there was some chatter about terrorists using thorny roses in an attack.
Do they still smell as sweet, though?
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
