RE: The Double Standard rears it's head (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message


Sternhand4 -> RE: The Double Standard rears it's head (3/6/2007 12:31:16 PM)

"Sternhand4:
I read the link and all I found there was rhetoric and spin no actual refutation of anything that Michael Moore has said. 
Then Mr. Hitchens cites the bravery of  Tod Beamer for fighting the terrorist tooth and nail ...yadda yadda yadda  and we now know from the cockpit voice recorder the lets roll drama  never happened except on television   So it would appear that your cite shows rather the perfidy of your source and not Mr Moore
thompson

 
A cockpit voice recorder wouldnt pick up conversations in the passenger cabin. It was heard over the inflight phone system.
http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010916phonecallnat3p3.asp

It appears that you have a tough time reading as there are several direct refutes in the previous cited article. I tried to use one from a less than right wing source, as slate tends to be. But as you havent seen the film, feel free to just accept the premise.





DomKen -> RE: The Double Standard rears it's head (3/6/2007 12:31:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY


What about George H.W. Bush said "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots."


First, can you give me a source?  (Reliable, preferrably). 


Campaign press conference on 8/27/87 in reply to a question by Roger Sherman.


Not a real helpful cite.  No context, and no way for me to independently read it.  Where did you hear about it?


I heard about it when it happened.

Checking around some I find it in the wikiquote article on him here:
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_H._W._Bush

Which sources it from an article here:
http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/ghwbush.htm

As to the rest when you feel you have the time to be hammered on the hypocrisy of the right I'll be happy to provide the evidence.




RWAble -> RE: The Double Standard rears it's head (3/6/2007 12:34:03 PM)

Ditto; plus Bush is on the borderline of being a criminal for his involvment in his oil war.
quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

Maybe it has something to do with the Republicans getting the country into an unpopular war and now feeling the need to redeem themselves or get trounced at the polls?




farglebargle -> RE: The Double Standard rears it's head (3/6/2007 12:39:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: RWAble

Ditto; plus Bush is on the borderline of being a criminal for his involvment in his oil war.



You understate the liability.

11. Pursuant to the Constitution, their oaths of office, their status as Executive Branch employees, and their presence in the United States, BUSH, CHENEY, RICE, RUMSFELD, and POWELL, and their subordinates and employees, are required to obey Title 18, United States Code, Section 371, which prohibits conspiracies to defraud the United States.

12. As used in Section 371, the term "to defraud the United States" means "to interfere with or obstruct one of its lawful government functions by deceit, craft, trickery, or at least by means that are dishonest." The term also means to "impair, obstruct, or defeat the lawful function of any department of government" by the use of "false or fraudulent pretenses or representations."

13. A "false" or "fraudulent" representation is one that is: (a) made with knowledge that it is untrue; (b) a half-truth; (c) made without a reasonable basis or with reckless indifference as to whether it is, in fact, true or false; or (d) literally true, but intentionally presented in a manner reasonably calculated to deceive a person of ordinary prudence and intelligence. The knowing concealment or omission of information that a reasonable person would consider important in deciding an issue also constitutes fraud.

14. Congress is a "department of the United States" within the meaning of Section 371. In addition, hearings regarding funding for military action and authorization to use military force are "lawful functions" of Congress.




FirmhandKY -> RE: The Double Standard rears it's head (3/6/2007 3:58:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

I heard about it when it happened.

Checking around some I find it in the wikiquote article on him here:
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_H._W._Bush

Which sources it from an article here:
http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/ghwbush.htm

As to the rest when you feel you have the time to be hammered on the hypocrisy of the right I'll be happy to provide the evidence.


Welllll ... DomKen ...

You've made my list of unreliable sources, and lost any credibility you had in the past with me.

I'll address your last sentence first:

I don't think you have the ability to "hammer" me on much of anything, I'm afraid.  But, since you are obviously wanting me to be some kind of trash-talking right-wing nut, feel free to trot out your favorite hatred and conspiracy, and I'll be more than happy to make you look like what you are.

Your "sources" in particular, I find telling.

Sources

Wikipedia Article


The first one, a Wikipedia source that is suspicious as hell, and my conclusion is that you yourself or a buddy or another partisan hack has rigged it (and you list "computer expert" on your profile!).    Wiki is good for a lot of stuff, but they have constant problems with BDS people such as yourself constantly going in and changing things, so that current events relating to Bush, Republicans and anything conservative is constantly being hijacked.

Exactly like this one has been hijacked.  It's total bullshit (this particular article has been "edited" over 500 times since 2005 - tell ya anything?). 

An article on GWH Bush, as President ... with little or no information about his history, or anything else.  Almost the first paragraph is about the so-called "interview" that you are peddling, though. Interesting and telling.

If you didn't hijack the article and you aren't a hypocrite - then you're just gullible.


Positive Atheism website


The second source? 

Well, here we get a little more information.  Turns out that your "reporter" was an acredited reporter for the American Atheist news journal, and your cite is an atheist site, and the specific article was written by Madalyn O'Hair (who was murdered in 1995, btw).

The "incident" happened in ... get this?  1987.

It's being reported on from a partisan source (nothing wrong with that, per se, as I have discussed), but you've also not provided any non-partisan source of the comments.

I'd think that it would still be an item of interest to the main stream media, considering the "right wing religious mania" that many have about the Bush family.  So ... why no other source?

Another problem is that the link you give ... is a blind link.  The site (http://www.positiveatheism.org) doesn't have a home page.  At least not when I tried it several times. 

The site is registered to Positive Atheism Magazine in Portland OR.  I hope that's not your name the whois provides as the registering individual (even though it's public information, I'll not provide it here).

So ... how'd you get a blind link to an article on a defunct site that starts out with exactly the stuff you are trying to peddle?

Truthfully, sounds like a smear job, and only people who are blinded in the atheistic hatred for Bush give it any creditability.

Of course, my opinion is subject to change, if you can actually provide anything at least approaching an actual reliable source.

Can you? 


My Source - The Reporter himself.


No.  You can't.  You know why?  'Cause I went and did a 10 second google search myself on the subject, and found the "reporters" own site, and his comments of the subject.  Let me quote you Mr. Rob Sherman himself:

 All of the star reporters from the Chicago political press corps were there, along with members of the White House press corps (those who regularly cover the President and Vice President) and other national news reporters, but no other reporter did anything with the story about Mr. Bush's anti-atheist comments.

...

Beginning a few years after my story was published
[only in American Atheist Magazine, apparently - ed] , some atheists and other concerned citizens began to ask for proof that the conversation between Mr. Bush and myself actually took place, and that Mr. Bush actually said what he said.  I had nothing but my spotless reputation to go on, but that's not enough for many who don't know me.  Being that I was a print journalist, I had no need for a tape.  All I needed to do was to take accurate notes and report the story in writing.

      Urban legend has it that I supposedly made some kind of tape, but that I refuse to release it.  The fact of the matter is that I never made a tape.  Anybody who really knows me would know that, if I had made a tape, I not only would make it available, I would put it up on this web site so that you could listen to it.  However, the reality is that I never made a tape.

      A related question that comes up is:  What about the tapes made by all the television and radio stations?  Why can't I get it from them?  The answer is that broadcasters save only that portion of their tapes that are broadcast over the air.  After that, tapes are erased and re-used.

      With regards to the story about Mr. Bush's anti-atheist comments, broadcasters already had three big stories out of the news conference:  The Vice President of the United States had come to Chicago; the federal government was to provide us with disaster relief; and the Vice President talked about how he was going to win the Republican nomination for President.  There was other news that day that newscasts had to cover, so three stories out of the news conference was deemed enough.  The story about Bush's anti-atheist comments simply did not make the cut.  That happens in broadcast news.  They take the biggest stories and go with them.


So ... let me sum it up .... no other media outlet reported the story.  There is no video or audio tapes of the event, no other reporter will verify the story (despite there being a lot of high powered reporters), and three other major stories came out of the event, so it should have been a memorable time.

But nobody but the lonely crusading reporter from the American Atheist Magazine heard the slur on atheists.

[pause]

How convenient.

Just maybe ... just maybe ... he had a deadline, a story to write, and an agenda to fufill?

I dunno.  I wasn't there either.  But the propondence of the facts seem weighted against your example, DomKen.

And, oh, btw ... his very webpage that I quoted above has "proof" that Bush did say it!  But ... I'd advise you to take it with a huge grain of salt.  It's a flawed "proof" that anyone with half-a-brain (or anyone without an agenda) could drive a Peterbuilt truck through.

But go ahead and try.  Would entertain me in smacking you down.  Again.

FirmKY




WyrdRich -> RE: The Double Standard rears it's head (3/6/2007 6:43:23 PM)

"As to the rest when you feel you have the time to be hammered on the hypocrisy of the right I'll be happy to provide the evidence."
 
 
       Sorry, DomKen, we already get hammered with the hypocrisy of the right on a regular basis.  Got something interesting on the hypocrisy of the left?




dcnovice -> RE: The Double Standard rears it's head (3/6/2007 6:53:53 PM)

quote:

comedian from the right


Was she billed as a "comedian," though? Doesn't she pass herself off as an actual commentator?

quote:

I also think they were funny as hell,


Calling someone a faggot is funny as hell? I thought I had a robust sense of humor, but I'm afraid I don't get that one. Maybe it's different when you've been on the receiving end of both that epithet and actual violence from those who use it.




dcnovice -> RE: The Double Standard rears it's head (3/6/2007 7:05:00 PM)

quote:

And yes, she runs her mouth and says a lot of stupid things.


And, knowing that, conservatives keep asking her to come speak.




dcnovice -> RE: The Double Standard rears it's head (3/6/2007 7:09:37 PM)

quote:

i've always thought it was because she actually says what some other conservatives think and don't have the cajones to admit.


That's my theory too.




FirmhandKY -> RE: The Double Standard rears it's head (3/6/2007 7:16:51 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

comedian from the right


Was she billed as a "comedian," though? Doesn't she pass herself off as an actual commentator?


And Al Franken is a comedian ... who is running for US senator?

Don't pigeon hole, dcnovice.  Being a "commentator" doesn't mean you can't be a funny commentator, does it?

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

I also think they were funny as hell,


Calling someone a faggot is funny as hell? I thought I had a robust sense of humor, but I'm afraid I don't get that one. Maybe it's different when you've been on the receiving end of both that epithet and actual violence from those who use it.


/smart-ass/ Well, like the "left" always tells the right when these type of things come up ... get a thick skin ... it's all in humor .... /end smartass/  [:D]

Seriously, though dc, you are trying to take it from the intellectual to the personal.  It doesn't matter what term she used, it was the way she grammatically structured it (in which there is an unexpected twist in the listener's mind) that makes it "funny", not simply for the use of that word.

She could have used any other term, it would have still been humorous.

If it makes you feel any better, you can use the negative right wing stereotype word of your choice, and use it on me, or a leading Republican. I'll see the humor in it too.

She could have used just about any other term, it would have still be humorous.  Doesn't mean the word she choose was in good taste, or it would be a term I'd use.  If you read all of my posts, you'll see that I said I thought her joke was in poor taste.

But I can still see the humor in it.

FirmKY




dcnovice -> RE: The Double Standard rears it's head (3/6/2007 7:23:35 PM)

quote:

But an insult is an insult, isn't it?


I think it's more nuanced than that. Some insults, imho, are definitely worse than others.




dcnovice -> RE: The Double Standard rears it's head (3/6/2007 7:27:19 PM)

quote:

Seriously, though dc, you are trying to take it from the intellectual to the personal. 


When you've been gay-bashed, it's impossible not to take the word faggot personally.

quote:

She could have used any other term, it would have still been humorous.


Would it have been funny with the word nigger?




farglebargle -> RE: The Double Standard rears it's head (3/6/2007 7:51:08 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

comedian from the right


Was she billed as a "comedian," though? Doesn't she pass herself off as an actual commentator?

quote:

I also think they were funny as hell,


Calling someone a faggot is funny as hell?


Coarse, but sometimes effective. Got her some press, so by the measure of someone who gets paid to give speeches, it was a pretty good line.

However, when we learn that she's hanging with Matt Sanchez, A.K.A. Gay Escort and Pornstar Rod Majors it becomes ironically hi-larious.

Anyone ask Mary Cheney her opinion?




WyrdRich -> RE: The Double Standard rears it's head (3/6/2007 8:48:13 PM)

       The problem Edwards might have now that it has sorta been said (she didn't actually call him anything, did she?) is it will stick.  He's always vaguely reminded me of something, and now I know what it is;  That creepy guy who just looks way too affluent to be hanging around the restroom of the bus station.

     It's kinda like when Sinergy mentioned hearing Christopher Walken's voice from Pulp Fiction, every time John McCain speaks.  The thought is there now and I can't get it out.




dcnovice -> RE: The Double Standard rears it's head (3/6/2007 8:54:50 PM)

quote:

Anyone ask Mary Cheney her opinion?


I've wondered her opinion on a lot of things the past six years.




WyrdRich -> RE: The Double Standard rears it's head (3/6/2007 8:59:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

Anyone ask Mary Cheney her opinion?


I've wondered her opinion on a lot of things the past six years.



       Like being outed to the whole world by a Democrat nominee for President?




dcnovice -> RE: The Double Standard rears it's head (3/6/2007 9:01:32 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: WyrdRich

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

Anyone ask Mary Cheney her opinion?


I've wondered her opinion on a lot of things the past six years.



       Like being outed to the whole world by a Democrat nominee for President?


Brace yourself to be shocked, Rich, but this Democrat disapproved of Kerry's doing that.




farglebargle -> RE: The Double Standard rears it's head (3/6/2007 9:04:15 PM)

Thanksgiving must be a real hoot over at their place...

I'm reminded of this from July 2000.

"On Sunday, the issue of Cheney's sexuality took an odd twist, when her mother Lynne denied ABC's Cokie Roberts' assertion that Mary Cheney has "declared that she is openly gay." An irritated Lynne Cheney shot back: "Mary has never declared such a thing. I would like to say that I'm appalled at the media interest in one of my daughters. I have two wonderful daughters. I love them very much. They are bright; they are hard-working; they are decent. And I simply am not going to talk about their personal lives. And I'm surprised, Cokie, that even you would want to bring it up on this program."

See the subtext... She's DECENT, BRIGHT and Hard-working... She can't be gay.

Is she spinning it for the audience? Is she sincere? Must suck either way.




Lordandmaster -> RE: The Double Standard rears it's head (3/6/2007 9:06:38 PM)

Sounds like these are "expectations" that the conservatives are placing on THEMSELVES, WyrdRich.  Republicans don't do a fucking thing to please liberals.  They do whatever they think will garner them more votes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: WyrdRich

    Why exactly are the Libs so comfortable placing expectations on Conservatives that they would never consider meeting themselves? 




WyrdRich -> RE: The Double Standard rears it's head (3/6/2007 9:07:49 PM)

      Not surprised by that a bit, DC.  Personally, I've been so disgusted by the tone and tactics the Dems have embraced in recent years that I won't vote for one for dogcatcher.  He caught some Hell for saying it, but I don't recall an apology for it being expected from anyone but him.  I don't recall him actually giving one either... making excuses perhaps, but not saying he was ashamed of himself for doing it.




Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0390625