Note: This thread formerly titled, "Are all liberals assholes... or is it just these guys?" has been renamed in responce to a direct order from the ACLU.
GIRL CRIES AFTER BUSH/CHENEY SIGN RIPPED BY THUGS...
Quote:
"She was crying; they were pushing and shoving her," said Mr. Parlock, a Huntington real estate agent. "She was scared." 
The look on that ass-hole's face. 
They attacked the police the GOP convention.
Now they are attacking little kids.
Great bunch of people the Kerry supporters are.
Quote:
the G-man said:
Great bunch of people the Kerry supporters are.
You know better than to make broad generalizations. I am a Kerry supporter and I have attacked no one.
Quote:
the G-man said:
Now they are attacking little kids.
If the guy on the left is the guy that did it, then, yes, he should be ashamed. Certainly makes him appear ill-mannered and boorish. Doesn't mean all Kerry supporters are the same or even similiar. Let's keep the rhetoric down to at least reasonable, shall we?
Jim
Generalizations that are recognized as "generalizations" (*that is, acknowledged as having exceptions to the rule such as yourself) but still based on a consistent set of behaviors are not per se wrong.
Nationwide and with some regularity:
We have Kerry supporters attacking the police.
We have Kerry supporters attacking little kids
We have Kerry supporters stealing pro-Bush signs.
At some point we have to ask if a significant portion of Kerry's support isn't coming from, well, jerks.
Quote:
the G-man said:
Generalizations that are recognized as "generalizations" (*that is, acknowledged as having exceptions to the rule such as yourself) but still based on a consistent set of behaviors are not per se wrong.
Nationwide and with some regularity:
We have Kerry supporters attacking the police.
We have Kerry supporters attacking little kids
We have Kerry supporters stealing pro-Bush signs.
At some point we have to ask if a significant portion of Kerry's support isn't coming from, well, jerks.
Geez, I expected better of you, G-man.
Fact of the matter, the attackers were Kerry supporters. I realise it is a generalisation and the title of the thread WAS tounge and cheek, but one thing I've noticed (and many others have noticed) is for the left one of the primary issues of this election is "hate". You hear alot more I hate Bush than I love Kerry. In Seattle almost every house I've seen with Bush sighns have been vandalised, one spray painted with "Fuck Bush" A man here locally was beaten up for suporting the president with a sign. If you read the story, after the thugs started in the rest of the Kerry supporters joined in, even in the picture you see they guy acctually taunting the kid and the rest of the Kerry supporters yelling at the kid and her father rather than the asshole who accosted her. I've been to Bush rallies and I can assure you if someone accosted a kid regardless of what sighn they were carrying, they would get thier ass handed to them, infact even when adults show up they usually ignore them or talk to them, untill of course they start yelling profanity at them. I think that many (not all) Kerry supporters are so overcome with thier hatred of Bush that they lose site of common sense and how you're suposed to treat ohter human beings.... what's the word...... oh yea tollerance
Quote:
Wednesday said:
Quote:
the G-man said:
Generalizations that are recognized as "generalizations" (*that is, acknowledged as having exceptions to the rule such as yourself) but still based on a consistent set of behaviors are not per se wrong.
Nationwide and with some regularity:
We have Kerry supporters attacking the police.
We have Kerry supporters attacking little kids
We have Kerry supporters stealing pro-Bush signs.
At some point we have to ask if a significant portion of Kerry's support isn't coming from, well, jerks.
Geez, I expected better of you, G-man.
Yea, after all you ARE a Bush supporter.
There are assholes (it's one word, btw, and Rob's banner is just one Big Ass Error) on both sides of the fence.
And don't bitch and moan about the bad stuff said about conservatives or say the conservatives on this board never bash liberals when you start threads like this. "Are all liberals ass holes?" lends itself toward a very big generalization, a very negative one at that. This ain't Jeopardy, and putting it in the form of a question doesn't make a difference. And neither does calling it tongue-in-cheek. I could call every comment made about conservatives tongue-in-cheek.
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Yea, after all you ARE a Bush supporter.
I'm talking about the gross generalizations and logic errors made in G-man's statement.
Gee, I hate to add fule to the fire, but here'a another ass-hole.
Kerry supporter arrested in campaign-fueled air rage case... Quote:
Husar boarded Flight 849 in Minneapolis on his way from New York to visit some friends in Alaska, his wife, Linda, said yesterday. Officials said Husar, a supporter of Sen. John Kerry, was engaged in a discussion on the upcoming presidential election with a woman seated next to him - a President George W. Bush supporter - when she became turned off by his belligerent attitude and complained to the flight staff.
The woman also did not like that Husar would touch her leg and shoulder when he spoke to her, authorities said. Corona said Husar had "had a few drinks."
Russell Ridd, supervising senior crown attorney for the Manitoba Justice Department, said that when flight attendants approached Husar, he became enraged, deliberately spilling a container of alcohol and engaging in "the boisterous behavior of a drunk."
Ridd said the pilot deemed the situation "a minor emergency" and called for an abrupt landing. An armed marshal sat next to Husar until the plane reached a Winnipeg airport, where Husar was kicked off and promptly arrested.
Even if it was a Kerry sign that was ripped this picture would remain pretty fuckin funny.
Quote:
Wednesday said:
There are assholes (it's one word, btw, and Rob's banner is just one Big Ass Error) on both sides of the fence.
And don't bitch and moan about the bad stuff said about conservatives or say the conservatives on this board never bash liberals when you start threads like this. "Are all liberals ass holes?" lends itself toward a very big generalization, a very negative one at that. This ain't Jeopardy, and putting it in the form of a question doesn't make a difference. And neither does calling it tongue-in-cheek. I could call every comment made about conservatives tongue-in-cheek.
There are assholes on both sides of the fence, but as I mentioned in an earlier post it's been my observation that one side is CLEARLY more hostile than the other and getting upsett because a generalisation is made doesn't make the generalisation untrue. You may be offended by my pointing out acts of hostility towards conservitives, but I've experienced it first hand. I'm in now way a victim, but I don't like the overt hostility directed towards me and people who share my politics. I'll say that MOST liberals aren't assholes, but they do seem to look the other way durring this capaign. Even you, who I consider to be one of the most reasonable posters on this board (liberal OR conservitive) seem more offended that I mentioned a Kerry supporter bullied a child than you are over the acctual act. And there IS a huge difference between asking a question and making a statement. That distiction isn't exclusive to Jeapordy. If anything it's an invitation to distance the cause from the offence, but that's onot what happened. Instead I got.... "there are conservitive assholes too." well I haven't heard about any bullying kids.
Quote:
Fused said:
Even if it was a Kerry sign that was ripped this picture would remain pretty fuckin funny.
See, Wednesday, I told you so.
Quote:
the G-man said:
At some point we have to ask if a significant portion of Kerry's support isn't coming from, well, jerks.
You may ask this all you wish.
But you could look at this kind of behavior as coming from people so fucking fed up with the current Administration that they're reduced to behaving badly.
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
one thing I've noticed (and many others have noticed) is for the left one of the primary issues of this election is "hate". You hear alot more I hate Bush than I love Kerry.
I have noticed as well that this election, more than any other I can recall in my lifetime of near 40 years is that there are 3 factions going on.
1. Pro Bush
2. Pro Kerry
3. Anybody but Bush (the "I hate Bush" crowd)
Quote:
Jim Jackson said:
Quote:
the G-man said:
At some point we have to ask if a significant portion of Kerry's support isn't coming from, well, jerks.
You may ask this all you wish.
But you could look at this kind of behavior as coming from people so fucking fed up with the current Administration that they're reduced to behaving badly.
Translation: It's Bush's fault.
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Quote:
Jim Jackson said:
Quote:
the G-man said:
At some point we have to ask if a significant portion of Kerry's support isn't coming from, well, jerks.
You may ask this all you wish.
But you could look at this kind of behavior as coming from people so fucking fed up with the current Administration that they're reduced to behaving badly.
Translation: It's Bush's fault.
No. Translation: They're fucking fed up with Bush that they'd even rip a sign of a toddler's hands (though I gotta ask what her dad was thinking if he sensed the vibe was bad, and if he did sense it, his job as a responsible parent is to get his kid outta there).
Jim
Quote:
In the picture, you can see one of the painters union guys has a piece of one of my signs in his hand."
Wow, you mean a Union asshole/lemming did this?
Now there's a shock.
That guy's lucky he didn't get his ass beat right on the spot.
Quote:
Jim Jackson said:
[I gotta ask what her dad was thinking if he sensed the vibe was bad, and if he did sense it, his job as a responsible parent is to get his kid outta there.
Blaming the victim?
How very...unliberal.
Quote:
Jim Jackson said:
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Quote:
Jim Jackson said:
Quote:
the G-man said:
At some point we have to ask if a significant portion of Kerry's support isn't coming from, well, jerks.
You may ask this all you wish.
But you could look at this kind of behavior as coming from people so fucking fed up with the current Administration that they're reduced to behaving badly.
Translation: It's Bush's fault.
No. Translation: They're fucking fed up with Bush that they'd even rip a sign of a toddler's hands (though I gotta ask what her dad was thinking if he sensed the vibe was bad, and if he did sense it, his job as a responsible parent is to get his kid outta there).
Jim
I have no idea how to respond to that. I've been fed up with alot of things, but never enough to bully a kid.
Quote:
Jim Jackson said:
They're fucking fed up with Bush that they'd even rip a sign of a toddler's hands
Maybe even more fed up than that.
One liberal columnist fears mass suicide if President Bush wins re-election:
It's not hard to imagine that on November 3rd there might be a sort of grim mass exodus from this sad planet should Bush pull this election out. My generation may be particularly vulnerable to the urge to lay back in a warm bath and open up their veins as chants of "Four More Years" echo horribly from every 24 hour cable news station.
Maybe we should put some of the posters here on suicide watch?
Another end of the world, Chicken Little liberal. Reminds me of someone who posts here...
Quote:
MisterJLA said:
Quote:
In the picture, you can see one of the painters union guys has a piece of one of my signs in his hand."
Wow, you mean a Union asshole/lemming did this?
Now there's a shock.
That guy's lucky he didn't get his ass beat right on the spot.
Makes you woder why he wasn't.
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
There are assholes on both sides of the fence, but as I mentioned in an earlier post it's been my observation that one side is CLEARLY more hostile than the other and getting upsett because a generalisation is made doesn't make the generalisation untrue.
That's an observation that I really can't argue for or against. The only thing I can say is that as a liberal I've observed much more conservative assholeness. I'll be the first to point out, though, that it's more than likely that it's because that's the side that would send its hostility in my direction. A lot easier to see it when it's coming at you than when it's going the other way.
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
You may be offended by my pointing out acts of hostility towards conservitives, but I've experienced it first hand. I'm in now way a victim, but I don't like the overt hostility directed towards me and people who share my politics.
I'm not offended by you pointing it out. If anything, it's a news item like anything else. I myself have posted news articles in which liberals came out looking like assholes (in the RNC thread).
What I'm pointing out isn't the news article, but the thread title. Though that still doesn't offend me personally, it is an attack, in my view.
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
I'll say that MOST liberals aren't assholes
Then I'll assume that your thread title was in jest, but I hope you see why many of us wouldn't laugh
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
but they do seem to look the other way durring this capaign. Even you, who I consider to be one of the most reasonable posters on this board (liberal OR conservitive) seem more offended that I mentioned a Kerry supporter bullied a child than you are over the acctual act.
Thanks. But I'm not looking the other way, either. Once you posted it, I started scanning through the internet so I could make a valid judgment about what happened. From your article, I'd say he's definitely an asshole, A BIG TIME ASSHOLE, but I'd like to know more before I conclude anything, since articles like this tend to be askewed.
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
And there IS a huge difference between asking a question and making a statement. That distiction isn't exclusive to Jeapordy. If anything it's an invitation to distance the cause from the offence, but that's onot what happened. Instead I got.... "there are conservitive assholes too." well I haven't heard about any bullying kids.
Not in the sense that I'm speaking about. Asking if all black people are stupid can be just as offensive as stating it. If you don't believe me, ask that question to one hundred black people and get back to me with your results.
I don't really feel the need to distance myself from this offense. I'd hope the 3300+ posts I've made before this would do that for me.
Lastly, I figured my comment about there being conservative assholes too was an admission that there are liberal assholes. Let me make that point clear:
There are liberal ashholes. There are conservative assholes. I don't care if you're a liberal or a conservative, I won't think any more or less of your for it. JUST DON'T BE AN ASSHOLE.
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Quote:
Fused said:
Even if it was a Kerry sign that was ripped this picture would remain pretty fuckin funny.
See, Wednesday, I told you so.
You're " " warms my heart wbam.
I'm a proud to have liberal/libertarian beliefs.
I'm also a proud asshole.
But neither are unequivocally in any way a result of the other.
Quote:
That's an observation that I really can't argue for or against. The only thing I can say is that as a liberal I've observed much more conservative assholeness. I'll be the first to point out, though, that it's more than likely that it's because that's the side that would send its hostility in my direction. A lot easier to see it when it's coming at you than when it's going the other way.
My frustration comes from the fact that on my street (96th Ave W in Edmonds WA) There are 6 houses in 3 blocks with Kerry signs, all of them unmolested, one house put up a Bush sign and was proptlly vadalised. Even before that happened my wife wouldn't let me put a Bush sticker on our Mini, because she was afraid it would get vandalised, turns out she was probobly right. i even argued at the time that no one would damage our car just because it had a Bush sticker... boy is there egg on my face. Keep in mid that unlike Seattle itself Edmonds isn't even primarily Democrat, it's about 50-50 perhaps even leaning conservitive.
Quote:
Then I'll assume that your thread title was in jest, but I hope you see why many of us wouldn't laugh
Acctually it was less in jest and more a halenge in the Socratic tradition.
Quote:
Not in the sense that I'm speaking about. Asking if all black people are stupid can be just as offensive as stating it. If you don't believe me, ask that question to one hundred black people and get back to me with your results.
You'd be surprised what I've asked people and gotten very reasonable answers. I usually have really good conversations with liberals, however I haven't really stuck up many conversations with strangers in the past many months. The rhetoric has gotten so hostile I've just been leaving it alone.
but I guess thier just fed up with the administration.
Quote:
Fused said:
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Quote:
Fused said:
Even if it was a Kerry sign that was ripped this picture would remain pretty fuckin funny.
See, Wednesday, I told you so.
You're " " warms my heart wbam.
I'm a proud libertarian.
I'm also a proud asshole.
But neither are unequivocally in any way a result of the other.
Don't get me started on Libertarians
Quote:
the G-man said:
Maybe we should put some of the posters here on suicide watch?
Although you couldn't possibly have known this, my father died by his own hand.
IOW, this remark and the smirk that follows it are utterly tasteless.
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Don't get me started on Libertarians
I don't think anyone ever wants to see you getting started on anything. Even your teammates think you're weak.
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Quote:
Jim Jackson said:
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Quote:
Jim Jackson said:
Quote:
the G-man said:
At some point we have to ask if a significant portion of Kerry's support isn't coming from, well, jerks.
You may ask this all you wish.
But you could look at this kind of behavior as coming from people so fucking fed up with the current Administration that they're reduced to behaving badly.
Translation: It's Bush's fault.
No. Translation: They're fucking fed up with Bush that they'd even rip a sign of a toddler's hands (though I gotta ask what her dad was thinking if he sensed the vibe was bad, and if he did sense it, his job as a responsible parent is to get his kid outta there).
Jim
I have no idea how to respond to that. I've been fed up with alot of things, but never enough to bully a kid.
Neither have I.
I simply offer it as one kind of example.
Social psychology tells us that people in groups often behave in less socially acceptable ways, and in ways they NEVER would when alone. Mob behavior, Kitty Genovese being allowed to bleed to death...human history is replete with examples of people behaving badly in social situations.
I'm guessing there's more to this story than just a Kerry supporting ripping a sign out of a little girl's hands.
Jim
Quote:
Fused said:
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Don't get me started on Libertarians
I don't think anyone ever wants to see you getting started on anything. Even your teammates think you're weak.
Dang, where did the personal flame come from? I appologise for making a joke, I guess I'll save those for people who don't respond like assholes... and my team-mates? I didn't realise there was a team, but please show me where my "team-mates" railed against me, because honestly if I'm hurting thier cause I'll gladly bow out.
P.S. What did I do to you?
Hey, fused don't speak for MY team.
WBaM is a welcome member of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.
(By the way WBaM, did you get your coded message for today from karl Rove yet? It's a doozy)
Quote:
Neither have I.
I simply offer it as one kind of example.
OK, i understand, but just so you know where I'm coming from, i don't think the "reason why" is usually an issue after the fact, only in regards to prevention. I mean people have "reasons" for doing all sorts of things, Like molesting kids or being cruel to animals or murder or rape, frankly I don't care, because there is no excuse for such behaviour, reasons are fine, but immaterial and there are never excuses.
Quote:
the G-man said:
Hey, fused don't speak for MY team.
WBaM is a welcome member of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.
(By the way WBaM, did you get your coded message for today from karl Rove yet? It's a doozy)
Yea if my team thought I was weak, why would they fax me the talking points?
Quote:
Jim Jackson said:
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
one thing I've noticed (and many others have noticed) is for the left one of the primary issues of this election is "hate". You hear alot more I hate Bush than I love Kerry.
I have noticed as well that this election, more than any other I can recall in my lifetime of near 40 years is that there are 3 factions going on.
1. Pro Bush
2. Pro Kerry
3. Anybody but Bush (the "I hate Bush" crowd)
Are there really many Pro Kerry people out there? Honestly, I personally haven't met any from that group. Everyone I've talked to who says they are voting Kerry is basically anti-Bush. I've met many Democrats who aren't happy with Kerry as a candidate, but they also don't want Bush in office anymore and are giving Kerry their vote.
And, yes, there is a lot of hate coming out in this election. It's coming from both sides, but I've noticed a bit more coming from the anti-Bush people (notice I didn't say Democrats or liberals). Republicans generally hated Clinton, but I don't remember any fights coming out of that. There were a lot of heavy arguements and debates, but the most violence or vandalism I saw during that was the sign on the bridge crossing into Arkansas as being Clinton's home state being full of buckshot. Hell, citizens had just as much a reason to not like Clinton as they did Bush; but I never saw it at this level. Where did all this hate come from?
Quote:
Fused said:
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Don't get me started on Libertarians
I don't think anyone ever wants to see you getting started on anything. Even your teammates think you're weak.
Quote:
thedoctor said:
Are there really many Pro Kerry people out there? Honestly, I personally haven't met any from that group. Everyone I've talked to who says they are voting Kerry is basically anti-Bush. I've met many Democrats who aren't happy with Kerry as a candidate, but they also don't want Bush in office anymore and are giving Kerry their vote.
Many I've met are anti-Bush AND pro-Kerry.
Quote:
thedoctor said:
Are there really many Pro Kerry people out there? Honestly, I personally haven't met any from that group.
But they are out there.
JJ
I've said quite a few times that I'm pro-Kerry.
BTW, where do you guys draw the line between someone being pro-Kerry and someone being anti-Bush? If someone's supporting another candidate besides Bush, does that make them automatically anti-Bush, or does it depend on how much they dislike/hate Bush, or how much they like Kerry or Nader, or what?
If the only reasons they give in voting for Kerry are to get rid of Bush and his policies, then they're anti-Bush and not Pro Kerry. That's what I've run into with people voting for Kerry. They'll tell me all the shit they hate about Bush and his policies, but I have yet to hear one say they really like what Kerry has done or plans to do. This, of course, comes a lot from the fact that Kerry hasn't offered any real alternatives and just smoke and mirrors (at least, in my opinion).
My old roommate is supporting Kerry and even working on the local campaign. He admitted that he doesn't really like Kerry, but he wants Bush out of office. Now, this is different from four years ago when he was working on the local Nader campaign. He believed in Nader and his ideas for America. Now, he's switched to the Democratic Party simply because they have a better chance than Nader at ousting Bush.
Quote:
thedoctor said:
This, of course, comes a lot from the fact that Kerry hasn't offered any real alternatives and just smoke and mirrors (at least, in my opinion).
He presented several ideas when he spoke in front of the NAACP.
Quote:
Darknight613 said:
I've said quite a few times that I'm pro-Kerry.
BTW, where do you guys draw the line between someone being pro-Kerry and someone being anti-Bush? If someone's supporting another candidate besides Bush, does that make them automatically anti-Bush, or does it depend on how much they dislike/hate Bush, or how much they like Kerry or Nader, or what?
I just see alot more signs and bumper stickers that say negative things towards Bush rather than good things about Kerry. I also see the opposite regarding Bush.
Exactly what I see.
I see "Bush/Cheney" for the right, and "Defeat Bush" for the left (I guess that means that they're not particularly proud of Kerry. The old Dean campaign ad comes to mind, "Anyone but Bush!").
Quote:
Pariah said:
Exactly what I see.
I see "Bush/Cheney" for the right, and "Defeat Bush" for the left (I guess that means that they're not particularly proud of Kerry. The old Dean campaign ad comes to mind, "Anyone but Bush!").
Ive even heard teh capaign to "Plug your nose and vote for Kerry.
From what I've observed here in Miami, it's somewhat different. While I have seen quite a few "defeat Bush" signs and stuff like that, I'm also seeing a lot of positive support for John Kerry and John Edwards. Lots of people have "Kerry/Edwards" bumper stickers on their cars, which I guess isn't the same as saying "Defeat Bush." So I'm seeing quite a lot of genuine support for Kerry and Edwards, although their campaign managers are widely criticized.
And I'm also seeing quite a lot of hatred aimed at Kerry supporters. Someone at my dad's synagogue called him a terrorist and a traitor to Jews worldwide because he was voting for Kerry. A friend of mine's car was vandalized because it had a Kerry sticker on it - we're talking smashed windows and slashed tires, thousands of dollars worth of damage. Someone else I know with a Kerry bumper sticker almost got run off the road by a guy with a Bush/Cheney bumper sticker who was shouting obscenities at her (although to be honest, he thinks the guy was drunk.
So while I won't deny that some Kerry supporters cross the line, and it's wrong for them to do so, they do not have a monopoly on lashing out at the opposition.
Honestly, since Kerry completed his ticket by adding Edwards, I've seen a lot of Kerry/Edwards signs, while before I saw mostly Defeat Bush stuff going around.
You can see it as not having faith in Kerry, or having a whole lotta hate in Bush. Either way, I've never seen a Presidential term instigate so many signs screaming for him to get booted.
A big question though is: Do we see any "Defeat Kerry!" signs?
Are we counting little shirts kids wear that say Democrats will make a mess if we vote them in?
Quote:
the G-man said:
One liberal columnist fears mass suicide if President Bush wins re-election:
It's not hard to imagine that on November 3rd there might be a sort of grim mass exodus from this sad planet should Bush pull this election out. My generation may be particularly vulnerable to the urge to lay back in a warm bath and open up their veins as chants of "Four More Years" echo horribly from every 24 hour cable news station.
Good. I don't mind liberals, and I have plenty of friends who dislike Bush, but we don't particularly need anyone that wound up about this in the gene pool.
Quote:
Pariah said:
A big question though is: Do we see any "Defeat Kerry!" signs?
Kerry isn't the incumbent. In 4 yrs you will see the defeat Kerry signs.
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
Quote:
Pariah said:
A big question though is: Do we see any "Defeat Kerry!" signs?
Kerry isn't the incumbent. In 4 yrs you will see the defeat Kerry signs.
Why? 
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Why?
....
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
Quote:
Pariah said:
A big question though is: Do we see any "Defeat Kerry!" signs?
Kerry isn't the incumbent. In 4 yrs you will see the defeat Kerry signs.
Why?
He isn't yet holding the office (yet), what would you be defeating him from?
Sorry, but the possiblity of a Kerry victory was so far from my mind I didn't quite get the joke.
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Sorry, but the possiblity of a Kerry victory was so far from my mind I didn't quite get the joke.
Yeah, I totally sense your unworriedness from your posts. 
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Sorry, but the possiblity of a Kerry victory was so far from my mind I didn't quite get the joke.
Yeah, I totally sense your unworriedness from your posts.
I'm currious, because honestly, after the RNC I have felt very confident that Bush will win. What in my posts indicates that I'm worried?
Quote:
Wednesday said:
Are we counting little shirts kids wear that say Democrats will make a mess if we vote them in?
The "Democrats" aren't "Kerry" individually.
Blanket statements are more understandable than naming names.
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
Quote:
Pariah said:
A big question though is: Do we see any "Defeat Kerry!" signs?
Kerry isn't the incumbent. In 4 yrs you will see the defeat Kerry signs.
They're still on the same level. Just because he's been and (at the moment) still is president, that doesn't mean we don't feel animosity towards Kerry for what he will do if he is elected. Taking this into mind, it would be reasonable to assume that the situation would be no different if we made signs saying as much.
But if you wish, I'll change it to, "Deter Kerry".
You have a singular wit, wbam....
Okay, now, I'm curious. Not about the discussion at hand. Simply, these pics...
Okay, first.
That is a pretty nice picture, quality and focus wise. Very unrushed, and professional. So, my question is, who is this photographer? Because, for him/her to be able to get such a clean, perfect shot of a "tragedy-in-action", they deserve a really nice award. It's rare to be johnny-on-the-spot for such a convenient, and basic, testament against the Kerry supporters.
Second.
Why, exactly, was the father continuing to hold her on his shoulders, looking sad and defeated long enough for such a clean and proper shot? Why didn't he remove her from the scene of violence the moment it happened? Even better, if this punk next to him commited such a heinous act towards his own daughter, right before his and the photographer's eyes, why didn't he remove her immediately, and then, come back with a crowbar in hand? Seriously.
I just find all of this very....curious.
If it's a true-to-life picture, depicting the senseless horror of political extremism, then, it deserves to be placed next to photos of over 1,000 dead U.S. soldiers, so the horrors of what Kerry and Bush have each wrought can be viewed by history....
...equally.
Eh, Prometheus, it wouldn't be the first time someone get a clean shot in the middle of a crowd. Maybe you should check Whomod's collection.
Also note the fact that the camera didn't make it in time to see the opposing party (of assholes) rip the sign apart. If what you're implying is true, then it would be reasonable to assume the camera would have seen them tear it to shreds.
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Sorry, but the possiblity of a Kerry victory was so far from my mind I didn't quite get the joke.
Yeah, I totally sense your unworriedness from your posts.
I'm currious, because honestly, after the RNC I have felt very confident that Bush will win. What in my posts indicates that I'm worried?
Just my opinion, but if you (& Pres. Bush) felt Kerry wasn't a threat, more time would be spent talking up Bush & not attacking Kerry (& the people who are going to vote him into office)
If your confidence was true you wouldn't feel the need to bash IMHO.
BTW Here's some more background on that nice lil Republican family...
On September 17, The Drudge Report home page featured a September 16 Associated Press photo of a 3-year-old girl, Sophia Parlock, holding a ripped Bush-Cheney '04 sign and crying as she sits on her father's shoulders. Drudge captioned the photo: "GIRL CRIES AFTER BUSH/CHENEY SIGN RIPPED BY THUGS...". Later that day, The Washington Times published an interview with the Parlock family, whom the paper described as "proudly patriotic."
As The Washington Times reported on September 17:
"They just pounced on us," said Phil Parlock, who took his 11-year-old son, Alex, and 3-year-old daughter, Sophia, to the Democratic rally at Tri-State Airport in Huntington, W.Va.
Sophia became briefly famous yesterday when an Associated Press photo showing her in tears after Democrats tore her sign to pieces was posted on Matt Drudge's Web site, www.drudgereport.com.
"She was crying; they were pushing and shoving her," said Mr. Parlock, a Huntington real estate agent. "She was scared."
Both The Washington Times and Drudge failed to mention that this is the third time the Parlock family has been involved in so-called assaults involving campaign signs.
As noted by the blog Rising Hegemon, Phil Parlock has claimed he was assaulted at a 1996 protest.
The Huntington man said he was knocked to the ground by a Clinton supporter when he tried to display a sign that read "Remember Vince Foster," the deputy White House counsel who committed suicide in a Washington, D.C., park. His death has become the subject of much debate among Clinton opponents.
"It must have been a strict Democrat who did this," Parlock said, feeling the red abrasions on his face. "Everyone with the exception of him was real peaceful about our protest." [Charleston (WV) Daily Mail, August 27, 1996]
In 2000, Parlock found himself in yet another confrontation with Democrats at a campaign event:
Phil Parlock didn't expect to need all 12 of the Bush-Cheney signs he and his son Louis smuggled in their socks and pockets into the rally for Vice President Al Gore.
But each time they raised a sign, someone would grab it out of their hands, the two Huntington residents said. And sometimes it got physical.
"I expected some people to take our signs," said Louis, 12. "But I did not expect people to practically attack us." [Charleston (WV) Daily Mail, October 28, 2000]
The photo of Sophia Parlock was taken by Randy Snyder. Apparently, Snyder is not an Associated Press photographer; he is listed as "chief photographer" on the masthead of The Herald-Dispatch, which bills itself as "the online news authority for Huntington, West Virginia, Southern Ohio and Eastern Kentucky."
The Parlock family has been featured numerous times in the Herald-Dispatch, including in a July 5 article about an Independence Day rally attended by President George W. Bush. The July 5 article also featured photographs by the same Randy Snyder.
On September 17, Parlock was interviewed by nationally syndicated Clear Channel radio host Glenn Beck. Regarding the Parlock family's attendance at a brief appearance by Senator John Edwards in Huntington, W.Va., at which the photo of Sophia Parlock was taken, her father recounted:
PARLOCK: The painter's union guys took a couple signs off of us. ... Um, some women and old ladies did it too. I mean, but you can see, clearly in that picture, he has a piece of the sign in his hand and he is dropping it onto the ground.
Minutes after his interview, Beck apparently received information about Parlock's past encounters, saying that "the blogs are going crazy." Following is an excerpt from Beck's second interview of Phil Parlock:
BECK: So you've done this -- and you admit to this -- you've done this ...
PARLOCK: But there's a certain consistency there, and you just read it. We are consistently quiet and peaceful ...
BECK: Mm-hmm.
PARLOCK: Glenn, look, I work on -- I, I, I said this before, I shouldn't tell my secrets, but -- I work on a subliminal level; I don't go after the press. The press is easy. Working on people to change their minds is harder.
BECK: OK.
PARLOCK: I'm not a troublemaker. We -- we've -- we have gone to rallies -- my family and I -- we stand there quietly, and we're viewed as a threat, for standing there quietly.
— O.W.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200409170013
Interesting, isn't it?
I'm very sorry that the young girl had to endure such an attack, but I agree with previous posters that I think the parent is partially to blame for:
1)brandishing his child with a sign, making her the focal point of his own political agenda(and I'd say the same if it was a Kerry supporter)
and
2)allowing his child to be further exploited by the public as the latest example of the dirty damn awful liberals violent outcry against Bush
Not knowing the exact circumstances of the encounter, I have to wonder if the parent didn't know beforehand what he was walking into, and have an idea of what might happen. Of course, that doesn't make the individuals who attacked the girl any less disgusting.
Ok, after actually reading the article(yeah...shaddup), I came across this:
Quote:
"They just pounced on us," said Phil Parlock, who took his 11-year-old son, Alex, and 3-year-old daughter, Sophia, to the Democratic rally at Tri-State Airport in Huntington, W.Va.
The guy took his 3 year old daughter and 11 year old son to a Democratic rally....carrying Bush/Cheney signs?
He's a jackass, too.
Quote:
Animalman said:
1)brandishing his child with a sign, making her the focal point of his own political agenda(and I'd say the same if it was a Kerry supporter)
2)allowing his child to be further exploited by the public as the latest example of the dirty damn awful liberals violent outcry against Bush
You really have no proof that he was using her as a figure head to promote anything. He was carrying her on his shoulders and helping him hold the sign. He said nothing that showed any signs of defaming Liberals.
Quote:
Not knowing the exact circumstances of the encounter, I have to wonder if the parent didn't know beforehand what he was walking into, and have an idea of what might happen. Of course, that doesn't make the individuals who attacked the girl any less disgusting.
While you did say that what those people did was wrong, this isn't really part of the issue. Noting this would be like saying, "You had it coming." These are rational human beings, not the spirit of the KKK. Why would he have any beforehand knowledge that they were going to get violent and that it would be unsafe to bring his kid there--Especially if these people are also wanting what's best for their country (the whole reason they're there)? Would it not be reasonable for him to assume it would be safe?
Quote:
Pariah said:
You really have no proof that he was using her as a figure head to promote anything. He was carrying her on his shoulders and helping him hold the sign.
Oh, come on. He took his kids to this rally, and had them carry pro-Bush signs. The fact that they were there at all is bad enough. That he carried them on his shoulders(thus making them clearly stand out) with signs that directly conflict the agenda a pre-planned rally, that's crazy.
I highly doubt that they were out on a jolly stroll and they just happened to come across a Democratic rally. The man was fully aware of the circumstances, and he brought his own kids right into it.
He has every right to protest something, to voice his opinion, but to bring your kids into a situation when you know brandishing a contradictory sign will be viewed as hostile; that's ridiculous.
Quote:
While you did say that what those people did was wrong, this isn't really part of the issue.
The "issue"?
I didn't think this was an issue. An issue has two sides, two stances, a reasonable area for debate. This thread just seemed like wbam blasting liberals with a loaded question diguised as an "issue".
Quote:
Noting this would be like saying, "You had it coming."
The guy wasn't going to get a pleasant reaction, and he knew that. Unfortunately, his kid paid for it, and a lot moreso than she(or even her asshole father) deserved.
Quote:
Why would he have any beforehand knowledge that they were going to get violent and that it would be unsafe to bring his kid there--Especially if these people are also wanting what's best for their country (the whole reason they're there)? Would it not be reasonable for him to assume it would be safe?
Violence comes in many forms. Should he have expected that his kid would have been attacked and her sign destroyed? No, probably not. Should he have entertained the idea that his presence there would not have been appreciated, and that he could have been met by verbal harrassment? Absolutely. Putting your children in a potentially disruptive position like this is borderline abusive.
What possible reason could he have for doing so?
Quote:
Animalman said:
Ok, after actually reading the article(yeah...shaddup), I came across this:
Quote:
"They just pounced on us," said Phil Parlock, who took his 11-year-old son, Alex, and 3-year-old daughter, Sophia, to the Democratic rally at Tri-State Airport in Huntington, W.Va.
The guy took his 3 year old daughter and 11 year old son to a Democratic rally....carrying Bush/Cheney signs?
He's a jackass, too.
Yeah, he went looking for trouble (and maybe even a photo-op). And he felt it was ok to bring his young children to it. As I said, in social situations, people often misbehave. If this guy hasn't got sense enough to know that before hand while taking his kids into "the other camp's party," then he's a fool and what he's done is exploitative.
Jim
Quote:
Pariah said:
You really have no proof that he was using her as a figure head to promote anything. He was carrying her on his shoulders and helping him hold the sign. He said nothing that showed any signs of defaming Liberals.
I don't know how many of you out there in Robbieland are parents, but I am. I have 2 children and recall when they were 3. OK, no 3 year old is going to be "helping" Dad hold the sign.
He was putting the kid out there. And that's wrong.
Jim
Using Jim's logic, if a hippie brings his kid to protest President Bush at a GOP event, I can beat up the kid and prosecute the father for child abuse afterwards.
Quote:
the G-man said:
Using Jim's logic, if a hippie brings his kid to protest President Bush at a GOP event, I can beat up the kid and prosecute the father for child abuse afterwards.
If you can somehow draw that from what I said, man, you have an active fantasy life.
JJ
Quote:
the G-man said:
Using Jim's logic, if a hippie brings his kid to protest President Bush at a GOP event, I can beat up the kid and prosecute the father for child abuse afterwards.
Actually that hypothetical hippie wouldn't be able to get near enough to the actual GOP event. And if he was somehow able to sneak a "Hope is on the way" Kerry/Edwards sign, the authorities would escort him out, no?
And would any of you guys really take a young child into a crowd of burly union members with a Bush sign? (this is the third time the family has made the papers) The guy who ripped the sign up was wrong but this doesn't say to much about the father's character.
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
The guy who ripped the sign up was wrong but this doesn't say to much about the father's character.
Yes, I agree wholeheartedly. Ripping the sign out of the little girl's hands is boorish. It says nothing good about a man who makes a child cry.
But the Dad's got to own up to his responsibility. He took his kids armed with Bush signs into a Dem rally. He was playing with fire just as a Kerry sign into a Repub rally is playing with fire.
The Dad was flat out irresponsible. Not abusive, but clearly exploitative.
Jim
Quote:
Jim Jackson said:
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
The guy who ripped the sign up was wrong but this doesn't say to much about the father's character.
Yes, I agree wholeheartedly. Ripping the sign out of the little girl's hands is boorish. It says nothing good about a man who makes a child cry.
But the Dad's got to own up to his responsibility. He took his kids armed with Bush signs into a Dem rally. He was playing with fire just as a Kerry sign into a Repub rally is playing with fire.
The Dad was flat out irresponsible. Not abusive, but clearly exploitative.
Jim
Guess the father puts his politics above his little girl's safety. I wonder if he would have had the courage to go into that group alone without his human shield?
What I hope is that the characterization of Kerry supporters as animals is not accepted as fact. We cannot allow one boor's actions to taint everyone under the pro-Kerry banner.
I've run into *plenty* of arrogant, potentially abusive Bush fans. At political rallies, when tempers can flare and emotions run hot, it's not a good idea to take little kids. Even worse to take little kids into the the other party's rally.
And certainly, to practice what I preach, I do not ascribe the behavior of the Dad in this case to all Dads or even to all Republican Dads.
This event had lots of ill-considered beahvior going on.
JJ
OK, just so I'm clear, let me list the rules of getting assaulted at a protest.
1) and probably the foundation of all the rules is you are not permitted to be at a Kerry rally with opposing signs failure to agknowledge this rule may result in being assaulted even if you're a 3 year old.
2) If you are assaulted more than once then your character is in question and we can assume that you weren't "really" assaulted.
3) While Kerry suporters are justified in assaulting you for expressing the wrong kind of speech, you are guilty of child abuse for expressing any kind of speech that would resonably result in a Kerry supporter assaulting your child.
4) The general display of pro-Bush (hate speech) material in any local may justify an assault on your person or property due to the neglegence of the Bush administration in causing such wide spread dispaire in sensitive educated people.
Now on to your comments MEM,
As far as my posting cotroversial articles being evidence of concern or worry about Bush's chances (an incumbant president has NEVER lost an election when they've come out of thier convention with 51% or higher), it's a reasonable assumption, but an innaccurate one. The reason I post more controversial articles is because Rob's board's aren't exactly a bastion of "undecideds" and when I do post positive articles they get burried with low replies and low views. We all know what Bush has done, he's either provided tax relief for working guys like me or he's padded the pockets of the top 1%, he's either freed the Iraqi people or slaugtered them unjustly sending over a thousand troops to thier death (BTW, 1 troop lost is too many, but that's what happens in war, troops die and all things considered 1000 is acctually a pretty low # theres a cost to anything worth fighting for, far more people die in cars each year, perhaps we should never go anywhere, far more college kids kill themselves each year, perhaps we shouldn't get educated.) I know I'm not going to convert anyone here, but I like posting here and enjoy a good spirited debate so I post the type of thread that will result in that.
My reasons for posting this particular thread is because it adresses an issue I deal with every day. I am confident that Bush will win, but I'm not confident that I or my property will remain unmollested if I wear a Bush T-shirt or display a sign or bumper sticker.
Quote:
My reasons for posting this particular thread is because it adresses an issue I deal with every day. I am confident that Bush will win, but I'm not confident that I or my property will remain unmollested if I wear a Bush T-shirt or display a sign or bumper sticker.
Moulton woman says she lost job for sporting Kerry sticker on car
Woman Fired For Kerry Bumper Sticker Has New Job
As for the poor child.
This bit of photography appears to be just as spontaneous and unplanned as your average episode of America's Funniest Home videos.
I'm eagerly awaiting the 'Kerry supporter kicks puppy', 'Scott Peterson supports Kerry', and 'Kerry supporter drinks a beer and cheets on his wife' articles.
Donald Segretti lives!
Quote:
Animalman said:
Oh, come on. He took his kids to this rally, and had them carry pro-Bush signs. The fact that they were there at all is bad enough. That he carried them on his shoulders(thus making them clearly stand out) with signs that directly conflict the agenda a pre-planned rally, that's crazy.
I highly doubt that they were out on a jolly stroll and they just happened to come across a Democratic rally. The man was fully aware of the circumstances, and he brought his own kids right into it.
Okay, hold on there, allow me to get a bit technical for moment; To be fair, he was only holding that one kid up on his shoulders (prolly cuz' she was real small). Also, I'm not implying that he didn't pre-plan this venture or that he wasn't being a bit stupid for bringing his kids in on the political retalition, but I wouldn't say that it was really an "asshole" thing to do if he took into mind that it was people he was dealing with and not pushy......Uh....Boars.
Quote:
He has every right to protest something, to voice his opinion, but to bring your kids into a situation when you know brandishing a contradictory sign will be viewed as hostile; that's ridiculous.
I stress again (in the form of a question): Is that necessarily violently hostile?
Quote:
The guy wasn't going to get a pleasant reaction, and he knew that.
But who's to say that he was going for any sort of physical OR verbal unpleasentness? Like I said before, considering these were rational human beings (and he knows this), why is it so conclusive that they would get rowdy any sort of way rather than brood at his presence? They're the ones trying to excerise what they think to be their enlightening opinions and then they go off and do this. They're definitely more to blame than him, by far.
Quote:
Should he have entertained the idea that his presence there would not have been appreciated, and that he could have been met by verbal harrassment? Absolutely. Putting your children in a potentially disruptive position like this is borderline abusive.
Not to say that he had this planned from the start (considering he went to the 96' campaign without his kids), but the fact that adolescents were there should have deterred the reaction in the first place. He said so himself that he didn't think that hostilities would go that far, so did his kid. Now, if he repeated this venture, then I would agree with your sentiment.
And I think it should be noted that most of those kids were mature enough to know what was going on. And just because an 11 or 12 year old is a minor, that doesn't mean he's not mature. I mean, Louis seems pretty well spoken from that post MEM submitted.
Quote:
What possible reason could he have for doing so?
He wanted more signs to be seen so his message would be noticed obviously. That's not really an excuse, but taking in the fact he didn't bother to bring his small tottlers last time, I'm assuming he brougt the three year old cuz' there was no one else to watch her. And if it was his sons alone, then I don't think there would really be an issue in this sense.
Quote:
I didn't think this was an issue. An issue has two sides, two stances, a reasonable area for debate. This thread just seemed like wbam blasting liberals with a loaded question diguised as an "issue".
Quote:
Jim Jackson said:
I don't know how many of you out there in Robbieland are parents, but I am. I have 2 children and recall when they were 3. OK, no 3 year old is going to be "helping" Dad hold the sign.
He was putting the kid out there. And that's wrong.
My point was that he wanted the sign to be held up, he didn't necessarily want his daughter to be the one to do it.
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
(BTW, 1 troop lost is too many, but that's what happens in war, troops die and all things considered 1000 is acctually a pretty low # theres a cost to anything worth fighting for, far more people die in cars each year, perhaps we should never go anywhere, far more college kids kill themselves each year, perhaps we shouldn't get educated.)
The fact that you attempt to rationalize and trivialize over 1,000 deaths as some form of agreeable "statistic", sickens me, and completely negates any intelligent point you may or may not have had. What a victimized fantasy world you live in, wbam....
Quote:
whomod said:
Moulton woman says she lost job for sporting Kerry sticker on car
Woman Fired For Kerry Bumper Sticker Has New Job
As for the poor child.
This bit of photography appears to be just as spontaneous and unplanned as your average episode of America's Funniest Home videos.
I'm eagerly awaiting the 'Kerry supporter kicks puppy', 'Scott Peterson supports Kerry', and 'Kerry supporter drinks a beer and cheets on his wife' articles.
You're a dumbass.
Quote:
Prometheus said:
The fact that you attempt to rationalize and trivialize over 1,000 deaths as some form of agreeable "statistic", sickens me, and completely negates any intelligent point you may or may not have had. What a victimized fantasy world you live in, wbam....
Why the hell does everyone treat those soldiers' lives like they were the lives of small children!?
They were grown up, responsible people who made their own choices, and one of them was to act as defenders of this country.
Your and everyone else's particular highlight of the fact that a certain number died makes this argument all the more despicable. It shows me very clearly that you're the one who's insensitive to their deaths, and using them as you're immunity from argumentitive scrutiny is all the more evidence of your jerk-off persona.
If I was one of the thousand that died in the war, I sure as fuck wouldn't have wanted to be remembered as a 'meaningless casualty'. Death is meaningless, that's a fact, but trying to use that one saying as your single priority for WAR does not work.
I will say, however, that the toll can exceed a tolerable number depending on the size of the campaign. For example, in Iraq's case, if over 2.5 thousand were dead, then I'd be pissed.
1000 is a big number, but even if it was 800 or 500, your tone of anger would still be the same...Heh, if it was 1.5 thousand, it'd still be the same. You'll use any number you could clutch for and say that the principle of death is enough to justify your disgust and still blind yourself to the fact that this was war. People die in war, and there's an expectancy of death. Get over yourself you fucking tourist.
Quote:
Prometheus said:
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
(BTW, 1 troop lost is too many, but that's what happens in war, troops die and all things considered 1000 is acctually a pretty low # theres a cost to anything worth fighting for, far more people die in cars each year, perhaps we should never go anywhere, far more college kids kill themselves each year, perhaps we shouldn't get educated.)
The fact that you attempt to rationalize and trivialize over 1,000 deaths as some form of agreeable "statistic", sickens me, and completely negates any intelligent point you may or may not have had. What a victimized fantasy world you live in, wbam....
In what way does throwing words like rationalise and trivialise and saying I sicken you adress what I say? just once Pro, I would like you to respond to what I say without attemting to discredit me simply by impuning my intentions. I don't think it's trivial at all, the troops we've lost, a very close friend of mine runs a VERY high risk of becoming one of those "statistics" due to his local and the job he performs. We pray for him daily and everytime I hear that a local soldier is killed my heart sinks and I become certain that it's him and images rush through my head of the last times I saw him and when I find out it wasn't him I think about how much worse it will be for the family of that soldier. I realise as you've said before that you enjoy the banter in bull baiting, but not on this issue. It pisses me off that you would think that you have any sort of exclusivity on compassion for our troops because you object to thier mission. Do not assume to know my intentions or the hurt I feel over the soldiers that we lose. If you don't want to respond to anything itellegent thing I've said fine, don't, but don't claim they've been negated by a false and offensive assumtion you've made about my intentions. I've shed tears over the troops we've lost. Have your fun insulting me if you want, but not on this issue. I won't play your game on this one.
Oh and by the way, you said before that you never insulted anyone who didn't insult you first, so, prey tell, when did I insult you? I objected to what I could have assumed was you were trivialising the lives of our sodiers by using thier deaths as an anti-Bush banner when many of them (dare I say most?) died proud of thier country, president and believing that thier mission was just and right and that thier death contributed to the greater good and would be deeply offended that thier death was disshonored by using it as an attemt to discredit thier mission, but I didn't I adressed the issue directly. If you would like to go back and forth insulting one another then start a thread in the off topic forum addressing what you don't like about me and I'll gladly join in. I mean c'mon if Oakley can at least do that.... can't you?
Quote:
whomod said:
Quote:
My reasons for posting this particular thread is because it adresses an issue I deal with every day. I am confident that Bush will win, but I'm not confident that I or my property will remain unmollested if I wear a Bush T-shirt or display a sign or bumper sticker.
Moulton woman says she lost job for sporting Kerry sticker on car
Woman Fired For Kerry Bumper Sticker Has New Job
As for the poor child.
This bit of photography appears to be just as spontaneous and unplanned as your average episode of America's Funniest Home videos.
I'm eagerly awaiting the 'Kerry supporter kicks puppy', 'Scott Peterson supports Kerry', and 'Kerry supporter drinks a beer and cheets on his wife' articles.
Donald Segretti lives!
You're the smartest poster here, whomod! I think you and I could become good friends!
Quote:
Pariah said:
Why the hell does everyone treat those soldiers' lives like they were the lives of small children!?
Isn't that what you guys are doing here? Showing us the atrocity of Kerry supporters, and liberals in general, as they abuse a small girl? I'm doing the same thing. You want to talk about the horrors of what these two men have created? Dead people, versus, a small girl crying? There is no comparison.
Quote:
Death is meaningless, that's a fact,
Is it? Or, is it an opinion?
Quote:
but trying to use that one saying as your single priority for WAR does not work.
I will say, however, that the toll can exceed a tolerable number depending on the size of the campaign. For example, in Iraq's case, if over 2.5 thousand were dead, then I'd be pissed.
So, alot of people have to die for it to be justifiable? Is that what you are saying? You actually believe in "acceptable losses"?
Quote:
1000 is a big number, but even if it was 800 or 500, your tone of anger would still be the same...Heh, if it was 1.5 thousand, it'd still be the same. You'll use any number you could clutch for and say that the principle of death is enough to justify your disgust and still blind yourself to the fact that this was war. People die in war, and there's an expectancy of death. Get over yourself you fucking tourist.
This coming from a guy that uses "You're a dumbass." as an intelligent response. Grow up, little boy. Of all the people here at Rob's boards, you are at the bottom of the list of opinions I even consider....
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
It pisses me off that you would think that you have any sort of exclusivity on compassion for our troops because you object to thier mission. Do not assume to know my intentions or the hurt I feel over the soldiers that we lose.
Then how in God's name can you support it? How can you be okay that they are shipped over there to fucking die? I mean, why? Are their lives worth anything we, or anyone else, is getting out of this? Anything at all? And, what are we getting out of this? At what point did it become neccessary that we invade and completely destabilize a third-world country (and don't use the word "9/11" anywhere in your answer)?
Why?
Quote:
If you don't want to respond to anything itellegent thing I've said fine, don't, but don't claim they've been negated by a false and offensive assumtion you've made about my intentions. I've shed tears over the troops we've lost. Have your fun insulting me if you want, but not on this issue. I won't play your game on this one.
There is no game here. I've already stated what I think about the current administration, the President, the campaigns, the war, and everything else a million times in threads here. I also stated my theory of this topic in my initial post of this thread. A theory that was given further validation by the article MEM found. So, I feel very little need to continue saying the same thing over and over again, when you absolutely refuse to acknowledge any point made, other than to find a way to refute it. No matter if it's right there, plain as day, you stick to your view permanently.
So, if you don't want to talk about the deaths of American soldiers, then, don't give me any of that "statistically acceptable losses" bullshit. That insults everyone here, and every soldier. No one should ever be an "acceptable loss".
Quote:
Pariah said:
Quote:
whomod said:
Moulton woman says she lost job for sporting Kerry sticker on car
Woman Fired For Kerry Bumper Sticker Has New Job
As for the poor child.
This bit of photography appears to be just as spontaneous and unplanned as your average episode of America's Funniest Home videos.
I'm eagerly awaiting the 'Kerry supporter kicks puppy', 'Scott Peterson supports Kerry', and 'Kerry supporter drinks a beer and cheets on his wife' articles.
You're a dumbass.
whomod's comments aside, did you read the articles he linked to? Can you justify a woman being fired just because of a bumper sticker she has on her car?
Quote:
Prometheus said:
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
It pisses me off that you would think that you have any sort of exclusivity on compassion for our troops because you object to thier mission. Do not assume to know my intentions or the hurt I feel over the soldiers that we lose.
Then how in God's name can you support it? How can you be okay that they are shipped over there to fucking die? I mean, why? Are their lives worth anything we, or anyone else, is getting out of this? Anything at all? And, what are we getting out of this? At what point did it become neccessary that we invade and completely destabilize a third-world country (and don't use the word "9/11" anywhere in your answer)?
Why?
Quote:
If you don't want to respond to anything itellegent thing I've said fine, don't, but don't claim they've been negated by a false and offensive assumtion you've made about my intentions. I've shed tears over the troops we've lost. Have your fun insulting me if you want, but not on this issue. I won't play your game on this one.
There is no game here. I've already stated what I think about the current administration, the President, the campaigns, the war, and everything else a million times in threads here. I also stated my theory of this topic in my initial post of this thread. A theory that was given further validation by the article MEM found. So, I feel very little need to continue saying the same thing over and over again, when you absolutely refuse to acknowledge any point made, other than to find a way to refute it. No matter if it's right there, plain as day, you stick to your view permanently.
So, if you don't want to talk about the deaths of American soldiers, then, don't give me any of that "statistically acceptable losses" bullshit. That insults everyone here, and every soldier. No one should ever be an "acceptable loss".
OK, if you continue with the tone of your first paragraph, then we can talk. Ask me why I believe what I believe or how I feel I can justify my position, but don't assign me a motive and don't accuse me of not caring about the troops.
As far as your second paragraph goes, "the game" I was refering to was the bull baiting of assigning motive and vollying personal jabs, not discussing casualties. I'll gladlt discuss the issues regardless of how they make me feel.
Finally as far as me agknoledging and excepting your positions and holding firm to my own, well, welcome to the world of debate. I haven't exactly seen you embrace the points I make. I'm willing to accept that you, whomod, JQ and many others won't accept my points or embrace my point of view. If it ever happens on either side it'll be rare, however that doesn't mean we can't discuss things. If you're going to become frustrated that I don't accept your points then don't waste your time. It took a long time to convert me to the right. I can only imagine it being a much more difficult thing to take me back. If you're fine with that and want a decent exchange then have at it.
When I get more time I'll address the specific questions you brought up. Untill then...
OK, I have a little more time than expected.
Quote:
Then how in God's name can you support it? How can you be okay that they are shipped over there to fucking die? I mean, why? Are their lives worth anything we, or anyone else, is getting out of this? Anything at all? And, what are we getting out of this? At what point did it become neccessary that we invade and completely destabilize a third-world country (and don't use the word "9/11" anywhere in your answer)?
First, they aren't sent there to die. They are sent there to kill and to not die. Most soldiers don't die. They are sent there to accomplis thier mission. My friend who's over there now and recognises the fact that he may very likely die believs in his mission and even believs that if he did die it would be worth it. What are we getting? for one we've removed a dictater who was actively hostile to the US shooting at our planes and providing safe haven for terrorists. As far as destabalising the country, that's just not true. Just because the news doesn't report when schools are opened doesn't mean it didn't happen. Just because success isn't reported doen't mean the country isn't being built up. If I judged my own city by the evening news I would think IT had been destabelised. You hear on the news that 50 people are blown up in line to become police officers. What isn't reported is that the next day 50 more men gladly line up to become police, because they believe in the future of thier country and are glad to be free. Sure there are people who are upsett by Saddams overthrow, but some people were upset when the Nazis were overthrown too. People who benifited from the Nazi regime
Updated
Quote:
Pariah said:
Okay, hold on there, allow me to get a bit technical for moment; To be fair, he was only holding that one kid up on his shoulders (prolly cuz' she was real small). Also, I'm not implying that he didn't pre-plan this venture or that he wasn't being a bit stupid for bringing his kids in on the political retalition, but I wouldn't say that it was really an "asshole" thing to do if he took into mind that it was people he was dealing with and not pushy......Uh....Boars.
People do stupid things. You protect your child from the potential danger, against people or boars.
He could have simply been harrassed verbally, and the damage still would have been significant because a child is extremely vunerable to something like that.
Quote:
I stress again (in the form of a question): Is that necessarily violently hostile?
I'm not getting why you're asking this. Why does it matter?
Let's not take this into a discussion of whether or not the guy deserved to be attacked.
Quote:
But who's to say that he was going for any sort of physical OR verbal unpleasentness?
Common sense.
To make a sports analogy, which is my nature, if you go to a Red Sox game with a shirt that says "I love the Yankees", just about anything could happen.
Quote:
Like I said before, considering these were rational human beings (and he knows this), why is it so conclusive that they would get rowdy any sort of way rather than brood at his presence?
It didn't have to be "conclusive". It was a possibility. It could have happened(and don't get into semantics on this, the chances of an altercation in this situation are significantly greater than in a typical public setting). Suggesting that the guy is completely faultless because there weren't posters up saying "we will attack if you if attend this rally with Pro-Bush signs" is absurd.
Politics are a very touchy area. This very forum should prove that! Not to mention the riots in New York....
And again, just to drive this point home, so that there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever(because they're shouldn't be), none of that makes what happened to the young girl right, or justified.
Quote:
They're definitely more to blame than him, by far.
Yes, they most certainly are.
Quote:
And I think it should be noted that most of those kids were mature enough to know what was going on.
I disagree. They might have known that the gathering was in support of a guy, but I really doubt they could have understood why it was a poor situation to walk in to. Especially in the case of the little girl. She was way to young to have any idea of what was going on.
Quote:
He wanted more signs to be seen so his message would be noticed obviously.
That's no reason to involve his kids.
Quote:
Don't know why you're rolling your eyes. This topic wasn't started for polite debate. It was started so that wbam could blast liberals. I imagine even he would admit that. The title of the thread tells you all you need to know.
Ithaca, New York, home to Cornell University, is often referred to as "
the most enlightened city in America."
The reason for that moniker is that it is considered the most liberal city in America. More liberal than Madison, more liberal than Seattle, more liberal than even Berkeley.
This week, the
Ithaca Times had an editorial that seems to acknowledge that, at least in the most liberal city in America, it isn't pro-Kerry,
it's anti-Bush, and woe to the property (and maybe physical health) of anyone who "dares" support the President:
Usually, come election time, one may find the names of at least two presidential candidates on the lawn signs of voters. This year is unique in that, generally, only one name can be found - Bush - albeit in vastly different contexts.
There are, of course, the traditional Bush Cheney 2004 signs, reserved for only the bravest members of Ithaca's Republican minority. But, by far, the most popular signs feature the "BUSH MUST GO!" slogan, generated by a creative group of local activists.
However, two other political names are strangely absent. Support for the Kerry/Edwards ticket can be spotted on bumper stickers but curiously few lawn signs.
Ithacans take their lawn signs very seriously. First the "BUSH MUST GO!" folks complained their freedom of speech was being stifled. One unlucky person on East State Street had a sign stolen at least three times.
Then the Bush/Cheney supporters... signs were stolen or smashed. (Some might argue that, in Ithaca, they were lucky that only their signs were attacked.)
Unfortunately, this demonstrates that, in Ithaca, voter enthusiasm often degenerates into political immaturity.
Ithaca makes national news for it unique monetary system, its commitment to environmental sustainability and its beautiful gorges, but thank goodness the rest of the country will not learn about its silly political antics.
Granted this editorial isn't really scientific evidence of anything. However, when even the newspapers in a liberal city think that (a) it's anti-Bush, not pro-Kerry; and (b) conservatives in liberal communities are being silenced; (if not in danger of physical attack) then you have to wonder if there isn't something to the allegations.
Quote:
Pariah said:
Why the hell does everyone treat those soldiers' lives like they were the lives of small children!?
They were grown up, responsible people who made their own choices, and one of them was to act as defenders of this country.
Rather cold.
They were all somebody's children. To their parents, trust me, their ages don't diminish the loss.
Quote:
Don't know why you're rolling your eyes. This topic wasn't started for polite debate. It was started so that wbam could blast liberals. I imagine even he would admit that. The title of the thread tells you all you need to know.
This thread wasn't to "slam" liberals, but to ask why liberals seem to be more likely than conservitives to try and stifle debate. I respect alot of liberals. The reason for the title being what it was was to rile people up. That's my way. Honestly though if i thought all libs were ass hole I would have said so. That's my way.
Quote:
So, if you don't want to talk about the deaths of American soldiers, then, don't give me any of that "statistically acceptable losses" bullshit. That insults everyone here, and every soldier. No one should ever be an "acceptable loss".
I never refered to anyoneas an acceptable loss. If you read my post I said 1 death was too many. In the examples I gave "car deaths" and the such those are no less tragic and no more acceptable. My point was only to say the fact that people die doesn't discount the cause. Far more soldiers died in one day storming the beach at Normandy, those deaths were unnacceptable, but at the same time they were neccessary.
For the record appearantly, not ALL liberals are assholes. The Union that the thug belonged to has written a formal letter of apology to the family and taken disciplinary action towards the thug in question.
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
This thread wasn't to "slam" liberals
Come now.
"Heroes wrestle hate speech away from rich blonde"?
That, combined with your ridiculously sarcastic analysis of liberal "rules" makes your agenda clear.
True, and it ain't nothin' new.
Quote:
Pariah said:
Why the hell does everyone treat those soldiers' lives like they were the lives of small children!?
They were grown up, responsible people who made their own choices, and one of them was to act as defenders of this country.
Quote:
Jim Jackson said:
Rather cold.
They were all somebody's children. To their parents, trust me, their ages don't diminish the loss.
There does, however, seem to be a trend, be it partisan or otherwise, to infantize soldiers, what with the "sending our sons and daughters to die" rhetoric.
First off, the rhetoric might have had some meaning during Vietnam, when we had a draft. Now, however, its a volunteer military.
Being a volunteer military, a soldier's death is, in some ways, more akin to the death of a firefighter or police officer on duty. Like soldiers, both police and firefighters "sign up" for a dangerous life-threatening job that may kill them.
However, unlike soldiers, we rarely, if ever, refer to them as peoples' "children", despite the fact that, as JJ noted "to their parents...their ages don't diminish the loss."
Given the above, it does seem that the decision to refer to soldiers as "children" might indicate a certain bias in the choice of phrase.
I don't care if they're 18 or 180. If they are dying, then, it's a bad thing.
Quote:
Animalman said:
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
This thread wasn't to "slam" liberals
Come now.
"Heroes wrestle hate speech away from rich blonde"?
That, combined with your ridiculously sarcastic analysis of liberal "rules" makes your agenda clear.
Are you saying that my agenda is to "slam" ALL liberals because I'm sarcastic? I'll tell you what my agenda was, my agenda was to point out how rediculous tose statements were. If you want to tell me or prove that all liberals agree with those statements then I will "slam" all liberals on this issue, but frankly I have too much respect for liberals to assume they're all that silly.
Acctually I changed the name as a result that some people justifying the assault and blaming the victim, I'm not saying all liberals would do that..... are you?
The rules also are a direct response to what I thought were some rediculous statements and justifications in this very thread. So both of those things you mentioned weren't intended to slam any group as a whole but a direct response to things said in this thread. As for the original title (wich is what I thought you were originally refering) I'll admit, I was slaming SOME liberals and certain practices. I think the types of people who did this are a very small % of acctual liberals, but if I'd said that in my original post or in the title then we wouldn't have had the conversation we've had and some posters may not have fallen into the trap of defending these assholes thinking they were defending themselves. If I'm guilty, then I'm guilty on preying on peoples propenity to make assumtions. Of course if I start a thread called "Are all liberals assholes or is it just these guys?" you're all going to assume I'm saying they are and slip up (some of you) and let your real feelings known.
Quote:
Prometheus said:
Isn't that what you guys are doing here? Showing us the atrocity of Kerry supporters, and liberals in general, as they abuse a small girl? I'm doing the same thing. You want to talk about the horrors of what these two men have created? Dead people, versus, a small girl crying? There is no comparison.
I never said Edwards or Kerry brought this upon that girl.
Quote:
Is it? Or, is it an opinion?
Pfft!
When you trace the roots of the reasons that motivate unnatural death, you'll always come to a meaningless source--Or excuse if you will.
Quote:
So, alot of people have to die for it to be justifiable? Is that what you are saying? You actually believe in "acceptable losses"?
Either you're getting desperate or you're just stupid.
I can't control war. I can't fully control what starts a war, but I do know that when one starts and its just too late to keep the fire from spreading, I will at least (at that point) want it to go the way it was expected to turn out--And it goes without saying that in the grand scheme of war politics, that also entails very minimal loss of life. But since that definitely can't be predicted due to variables, I'm not about to hold it against the soldiers' superiors because they did what they could to insure as much chance for zero casualities as possible.
Now what I'm saying about this is, for that size country factoring in the capabilities of the Iraqis, I would expect we shouldn't lose this many. this is oppose to what you're accusing me of saying, "We will lose this many, so get over it."
Quote:
This coming from a guy that uses "You're a dumbass." as an intelligent response. Grow up, little boy. Of all the people here at Rob's boards, you are at the bottom of the list of opinions I even consider....
Then you shouldn't waste your time responding to me.
Quote:
Animalman said:
Quote:
Pariah said:
Okay, hold on there, allow me to get a bit technical for moment; To be fair, he was only holding that one kid up on his shoulders (prolly cuz' she was real small). Also, I'm not implying that he didn't pre-plan this venture or that he wasn't being a bit stupid for bringing his kids in on the political retalition, but I wouldn't say that it was really an "asshole" thing to do if he took into mind that it was people he was dealing with and not pushy......Uh....Boars.
People do stupid things. You protect your child from the potential danger, against people or boars.
He could have simply been harrassed verbally, and the damage still would have been significant because a child is extremely vunerable to something like that.
Quote:
I stress again (in the form of a question): Is that necessarily violently hostile?
I'm not getting why you're asking this. Why does it matter?
Let's not take this into a discussion of whether or not the guy deserved to be attacked.
Quote:
But who's to say that he was going for any sort of physical OR verbal unpleasentness?
Common sense.
To make a sports analogy, which is my nature, if you go to a Red Sox game with a shirt that says "I love the Yankees", just about anything could happen.
Quote:
Like I said before, considering these were rational human beings (and he knows this), why is it so conclusive that they would get rowdy any sort of way rather than brood at his presence?
It didn't have to be "conclusive". It was a possibility. It could have happened(and don't get into semantics on this, the chances of an altercation in this situation are significantly greater than in a typical public setting). Suggesting that the guy is completely faultless because there weren't posters up saying "we will attack if you if attend this rally with Pro-Bush signs" is absurd.
Politics are a very touchy area. This very forum should prove that! Not to mention the riots in New York....
And again, just to drive this point home, so that there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever(because they're shouldn't be), none of that makes what happened to the young girl right, or justified.
Quote:
They're definitely more to blame than him, by far.
Yes, they most certainly are.
Quote:
And I think it should be noted that most of those kids were mature enough to know what was going on.
I disagree. They might have known that the gathering was in support of a guy, but I really doubt they could have understood why it was a poor situation to walk in to. Especially in the case of the little girl. She was way to young to have any idea of what was going on.
Quote:
He wanted more signs to be seen so his message would be noticed obviously.
That's no reason to involve his kids.
Quote:
Don't know why you're rolling your eyes. This topic wasn't started for polite debate. It was started so that wbam could blast liberals. I imagine even he would admit that. The title of the thread tells you all you need to know.
*shakes head*
This is just gonna be another one of our continually circular acedmics. And I never really like putting time into those, so I'm stopping right here.
Uh, oh yeah. I rolled my eyes because we obviously had something we were arguing. Even if this thread's purpose is for what you say, we transcended it anyway, and were arguing a two sided issue. So, I was just saying stop nitpicking where nitpicking's not due. I was just being preemptive in the sense that I didn't feel like going over a dozen sub-topics cuz' of semantics.
OK, I have not read through post upon post of pro-/anti-Bush sentiments, but I think anybody who uses his daughter for political campaigning is an asshole! Think that 5 year old knows what that sign stands for? Sure not, maybe this will get people to think before trying a stupid stunt like this again! I'm not saying they're taking their kids into a warzone, but I think they're using them as human billboards without the kids being able to give proper consent.
Quote:
therealdeadshot said:
OK, I have not read through post upon post of pro-/anti-Bush sentiments, but I think anybody who uses his daughter for political campaigning is an asshole! Think that 5 year old knows what that sign stands for? Sure not, maybe this will get people to think before trying a stupid stunt like this again! I'm not saying they're taking their kids into a warzone, but I think they're using them as human billboards without the kids being able to give proper consent.
Yea, that's why the guys who pushed her arround were heroes. This guys crime of having his daughter hold a sign is unforgivable. Thank goodness for the brave man in the green hat.
Quote:
Prometheus said:
You're silly...
no, you're silly!
I'm rubber you're glue....and some other things about you....or something....
That little girl's ass got sacked!
I bet I could eat more rolls than you!
Can you eat more Freedom Fries?
I like to call them Frog Fries and I bet I could eat more of them than you even after my daily 9 pizzas.
Quote:
Prometheus said:
I'm rubber you're glue....and some other things about you....or something....
I know you are but what am I?
Quote:
Animalman said:
Mr. JLA'a on a roll!
Can't take credit for this one!
Quote:
MisterJLA said:
Quote:
Animalman said:
Mr. JLA'a on a roll!
Can't take credit for this one!
I like bacon fat on my rolls.
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Quote:
Prometheus said:
I'm rubber you're glue....and some other things about you....or something....
I know you are but what am I?
Oh yeah? You're a boogerhead times INFINITY!
I know you are but what am I infinity+1!
Oh and I'm glad to see Moore has desided to wiegh in on the issues.