RIH Osama Bin Laden

[ne1410s]

fb

The White House lost control within 8 hours of the event with its contradictory stories, shifting details,...

They must be following the Jessica Lynch/Pat Tillman template laid out by Bush the Lesser.

[tlynn78]

fb

The White House lost control within 8 hours of the event with its contradictory stories, shifting details,...

They must be following the Jessica Lynch/Pat Tillman template laid out by Bush the Lesser.

You know he is out of office, right?

t.

[flockofseagulls104]

Where's your heartfelt indignation against the inflammatory and violent rhetoric that spews out daily from the left? Do you demand apologies from the left? You are very limited in your targets, and you are biggoted, which your reaction to the Giffords shooting shows. I didn't see you demand apologies from the people who kneejerkingly blamed that shooting on Palin or the right in general. I believe you owe Beck an apology.
I will not defend Beck, not because I believe he did nothing wrong, which I do, but because I totally reject your premise.
The biggest mistake a lot of Republicans and/or Conservatives do is enter arguments with their opponents where the opponents define the premises of the debate. I reject your premise on this argument, as I do with most of the things we disagree with.

I don't think we'll ever get an accurate measure of how much "inflammatory rhetoric" comes from the left vs. the right. I do know that several shooters have admitted (or had witnesses state on the record to the effect that) they were influenced by Beck and other right wingers. I have yet to see any evidence of anything that serious being caused by left wingers. We get a number of cases of vandalism, petty assault, and silly pranks that somehow the right tries to equate with multiple murders.

I'm not expecting an apology from Beck. He knows where he gets his money from. I'm not looking for apologies from anyone. Frankly, I'd guess that about 99% of politically motivated apologies are completely insincere anyway. I'm hoping people will tone down the rhetoric, but as people like you and Flybrick demonstrate, you don't even seem to believe there is a problem. I'm becoming increasingly convinced that it's just a giant blind spot in the modern conservative psyche which shows itself at times most inopportune to their own cause. The more you tie yourself to people like Beck, the more damage you do to your cause.

You could do more good by spending your time finding things to correct in your own political party. You know nothing about conservatism, and you are wasting your time discussing imagined and contrived outrages.

I have yet to see any evidence of anything that serious being caused by left wingers.

Um, off the top of my head, I can think of a few....
How about the aforementioned shooting of Rep. Giffords? Who did that? A right winger? I believe it has been shown that this guy was a left wing as they come.
Who's the guy who started Obama on his political career? Bill Ayres? Tell me his heritage....
What about the guy who went after the Discovery Channel?
How about that Unabomber guy?

In fact, just a cursory google search can give you lots of evidence of things actually carried out by left wingers. Here's one, if you care to look at it. Who enflamed these people? Will you ask for apologies from them?


http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mithridate ... g-violence


You are spending so much time disparaging Glenn Beck, but I would bet that you haven't actually ever listened or watched his program yourself. You get your information the same way BJ does: through biased, bigotted propaganda mills like Media Matters, MSNBC, et al. The source I site might be just as biased, but I am not blaming Olbermann or Ed Stone for enflaming these people. I just think they are misguided on their own.

[Jeemie]

I've watched Glenn Beck.

And he's a genius idiot.

I don't blame what happened in Arizona on him, but I DO ascribe to the belief that just because you have the right to free speech, you should say whatever the hell you want.

I believe that with freedom comes responsibility...something many people have forgotten today.

And if I'm harder on the GOP than the Dems, that's because the GOP is the one that calls itself "The Party of Personal Responsibility".

I abhor people that don't practice what they preach.

Being personally responsible doesn't mean "making sure you don't cross over into lawsuit territory with your speech".

That's a pretty lame standard.

[silverscreenselect]

Who's the guy who started Obama on his political career? Bill Ayres? Tell me his heritage....

I don't think there was any talk radio, left or right wing, when Bill Ayres was active.

I don't know of one person who has done something seriously violent in recent years who has said that any left wing media source had any influence on his actions. I'm sure that if there were, the right wing media would be mentioning his case at every turn instead of straining to compare cop killers and church shooters with tire slashers and petty muggers.

But you're right about one thing Flock. I don't have any idea how you think. I'm sure your thought processes would amaze me if I understood them.

[a1mamacat]

http://icanhascheezburger.com/2011/04/2 ... ngs-wrong/

[Queen Fantine VIII]

It looks like Pipering the thread didn't work, so let's try this:

[littlebeast13]

It looks like Pipering the thread didn't work, so let's try this:

If this doesn't work, we'll invoke the dreaded Operation Hello Kitty.....

I hope flock and SSS like pink and sparkly.....

lb13

[minimetoo26]

It looks like Pipering the thread didn't work, so let's try this:

If this doesn't work, we'll invoke the dreaded Operation Hello Kitty.....

I hope flock and SSS like pink and sparkly.....

lb13

I see all this in pink and sparkly mode. Makes it all more ludicrous. The way I like it.

I only get to see the left half of pictures, but you can't have everything...

[Flybrick]

I'm hoping people will tone down the rhetoric, but as people like you and Flybrick demonstrate, you don't even seem to believe there is a problem.

I'm all for less heated rhetoric and more reasoned debate. The issues facing our country can't be discussed, much less solved, on a bumper sticker slogan or a 30-second soundbite most likely of a "gotcha" variety.

But you advocate only the right dial it back. Come out and say both sides should do so and I can take you seriously. Until then, you demonstrate the same partisanship that you accuse me of. I deny the partisanship. As a conservative, I mostly want to leave you alone and let you do what you want. As a liberal, you want to tell me what I can and can't do, what I can and can't own, what I can and can't decide for myself. That is the fundamental difference in ideology as I see it.

I'm becoming increasingly convinced that it's just a giant blind spot in the modern conservative psyche which shows itself at times most inopportune to their own cause. The more you tie yourself to people like Beck, the more damage you do to your cause

You see it "a blind spot" in others, but not yourself. To paraphrase, "poster, heal thyself."

I blame those that do violence. You blame someone else. I like free speech, you advocate muzzling it. I agree that it carries responsibility and I'll agree that the right can and does cross the boundaries of good taste (to put it mildly), but so does the left. And your posts lack any call for the left to be responsible. Instead, it's "they wish they had Beck's ratings."

On a practical note, ever wonder why left political shows/networks post such miniscule numbers compared to the right. Air America is defunct. Conservative talk radio flourishes. And before you go the Fox is the one place that conservatives can go so of course their numbers are higher than the multiple liberal venues, Air America was a one-stop shop. And it went belly up. MSNBC is pretty much a one-stop shop and it gets regularly thrased (ooh, violent metaphor again!), usually triple or quadrupled by Fox.

As to jeemie's:

And if I'm harder on the GOP than the Dems, that's because the GOP is the one that calls itself "The Party of Personal Responsibility".

does this mean the Democrat Party is the party of "no responsibility?" That certainly would be liberating (no pun intended) to be free to it never be the individual's responsibility.


And I like the puppy and kitty pics. What happens when the bin Laden death pics get leaked? How will that make this Administration look then? More incompetance in handling what should have been a good news for 'em situation and they are screwing the very big pooch, very publicly.

[Jeemie]

As to jeemie's:

And if I'm harder on the GOP than the Dems, that's because the GOP is the one that calls itself "The Party of Personal Responsibility".

does this mean the Democrat Party is the party of "no responsibility?" That certainly would be liberating (no pun intended) to be free to it never be the individual's responsibility.

This is really irrelevant, considering that even if the Democratic Party (do you and Flock realize how silly you look to continually parrot a Rush Limbaugh talking point?) does consider it to be always "somebody else's fault", it doesn't absolve today's conservatives of their hypocrisy by claiming to be all for personal responsibility, but rarely demonstrating it in their public lives.

And I am also closer (strange as it may seem to you) to the conservative end of the spectrum, and so therefore really care more about how conservatism is representating itself. I really don't care what the "hard core libs" or the Dems do- let them look to repair/guard their own image.

Of course, the brand of conservatism I believe in is a little more than the punch line and cariaciture conservatism as it is represented in the public forum is today. The conservatism I espouse would hardly be recognized as such today (of course, neither would classic liberalism). Mainly because today, people spend more time defending political brands than they do pilitical ideals.

It's easy to criticize the "other side", but ultimately it's much more rewarding to "look for the beam in one's own eye".

PS If you think today's conservatives TRULY want to "leave you alone to do what you want to do", then again, I will say you are drinking the Kool-Aid.

[BackInTex]

fb

The White House lost control within 8 hours of the event with its contradictory stories, shifting details,...

They must be following the Jessica Lynch/Pat Tillman template laid out by Bush the Lesser.

You know he is out of office, right?

t.

I don't think he does.

But the difference between the three events is Bush and his staff were not sitting in the situation room watching Pat Tillman be shot, or Lynch be captured or rescued on webcams. They had to rely on the eyewitness accounts of others. Obama and his staff, including Hillary were watching....live.

Huh? They made that up, too?

But, I saw a picture.

They were watching Celebrity Apprentice? I would have never guessed that.

[silverscreenselect]

But you advocate only the right dial it back. Come out and say both sides should do so and I can take you seriously. Until then, you demonstrate the same partisanship that you accuse me of. I deny the partisanship. As a conservative, I mostly want to leave you alone and let you do what you want. As a liberal, you want to tell me what I can and can't do, what I can and can't own, what I can and can't decide for myself. That is the fundamental difference in ideology as I see it.

I agree that liberals are guilty of excesses. However, people are not listening to Keith Olbermann or Rachel Maddow and then going out and trying to blast TIdes Foundation offices in San Francisco or kill cops in Pittsburgh. They are listening to Glenn Beck and doing those things. And it's not hard to see why. There is a consistent line of rhetoric that comes from a lot on the right that well armed citizens are the only protection we have against government tyranny and that when things get "bad" enough, patriotic citizens have the right and responsibility to restore some order. Sometimes it's said, sometimes it's thinly veiled, but give people that sort of mindset and tell them who the "enemy" is and you get the results that have happened.

Ironically, forty years ago when Bill Ayres and his ilk were active, the shoe was on the other foot. They were preaching that "taking it to the man" was the only way to get us out of Vietnam or whatever goals they wanted to accomplish. And that led to a lot of violence back then when people took them at their word. And those on the right were urging "responsible" liberals to tone down the rhetoric.

You and others on the right say you are for "free speech" but you fail to recognize the difference between government censorship and responsible speech. Glen Beck has the right to say what he does. No one is saying he should be arrested or held civilly liable. But saying one has a right to do something does not mean that it is morally responsible to do so. That's why every religion and every business profession has its own set of standards which usually go well beyond what the law requires. And further, because Beck has the right to do something and apparently does not care what the consequences are, it does not mean that others bear no moral responsibility in the matter.

The analogy between the Beck situation and the Aflac/Gottfried situation is a good one. Gilbert Gottfried is an entertainer who has the right to say anything he wants, no matter how tasteless it is. However, AFLAC did not have to continue to associate with him. And they cut off that relationship, quickly and completely, not after a public outcry about why they should do that but within a day of learning about what he had said (and before his comments got a great deal of media traction).

The right makes good use of Beck, Limbaugh and the others as convenient outlets to get their message to the public for free and to get free air time for their politicians and candidates to espouse their views. If they use Beck when it's convenient, they bear a moral responsibility when it's inconvenient.

The right has no shortage of people willing to say that premarital sex, homosexuality, and other types of behavior are immoral, and I've yet to hear one of them say, "well homosexuality is immoral, but I'm not going to condemn it unless the liberals do so first."

[ne1410s]

t g

You know he is out of office, right?

t.

In my heart of hearts, I do not believe you are this obtuse.

[flockofseagulls104]

But you advocate only the right dial it back. Come out and say both sides should do so and I can take you seriously. Until then, you demonstrate the same partisanship that you accuse me of. I deny the partisanship. As a conservative, I mostly want to leave you alone and let you do what you want. As a liberal, you want to tell me what I can and can't do, what I can and can't own, what I can and can't decide for myself. That is the fundamental difference in ideology as I see it.

I agree that liberals are guilty of excesses. However, people are not listening to Keith Olbermann or Rachel Maddow and then going out and trying to blast TIdes Foundation offices in San Francisco or kill cops in Pittsburgh. They are listening to Glenn Beck and doing those things. And it's not hard to see why. There is a consistent line of rhetoric that comes from a lot on the right that well armed citizens are the only protection we have against government tyranny and that when things get "bad" enough, patriotic citizens have the right and responsibility to restore some order. Sometimes it's said, sometimes it's thinly veiled, but give people that sort of mindset and tell them who the "enemy" is and you get the results that have happened.

Ironically, forty years ago when Bill Ayres and his ilk were active, the shoe was on the other foot. They were preaching that "taking it to the man" was the only way to get us out of Vietnam or whatever goals they wanted to accomplish. And that led to a lot of violence back then when people took them at their word. And those on the right were urging "responsible" liberals to tone down the rhetoric.

You and others on the right say you are for "free speech" but you fail to recognize the difference between government censorship and responsible speech. Glen Beck has the right to say what he does. No one is saying he should be arrested or held civilly liable. But saying one has a right to do something does not mean that it is morally responsible to do so. That's why every religion and every business profession has its own set of standards which usually go well beyond what the law requires. And further, because Beck has the right to do something and apparently does not care what the consequences are, it does not mean that others bear no moral responsibility in the matter.

The analogy between the Beck situation and the Aflac/Gottfried situation is a good one. Gilbert Gottfried is an entertainer who has the right to say anything he wants, no matter how tasteless it is. However, AFLAC did not have to continue to associate with him. And they cut off that relationship, quickly and completely, not after a public outcry about why they should do that but within a day of learning about what he had said (and before his comments got a great deal of media traction).

The right makes good use of Beck, Limbaugh and the others as convenient outlets to get their message to the public for free and to get free air time for their politicians and candidates to espouse their views. If they use Beck when it's convenient, they bear a moral responsibility when it's inconvenient.

The right has no shortage of people willing to say that premarital sex, homosexuality, and other types of behavior are immoral, and I've yet to hear one of them say, "well homosexuality is immoral, but I'm not going to condemn it unless the liberals do so first."

Well, SSS, I am disavowing you. Your constant denigration and accusations against Glenn Beck are getting to the point where some nutcase who happens to read your diatribes might take your comments to heart and do something about it. You are inciting people to violence and you should be ashamed of yourself, and if anything happens to Glenn Beck, you are to be held responsible. Your tactics are deplorable. Maybe we should go to Congress and ask for a law to ban you from posting your opinions on this bored. And I think the Democratic, Green or Communist party, which ever one you affiliate yourself with, should also speak out against you.

[smilergrogan]

They were preaching that "taking it to the man" was the only way to get us out of Vietnam or whatever goals they wanted to accomplish.

No, no, no, you've got it all wrong, you juicewagon jackbag. You stick it to the man, not take it. You take it to the streets. It's very important in life to know where to stick it and where to take it.

[SportsFan68]

. . .

But you advocate only the right dial it back. Come out and say both sides should do so and I can take you seriously. Until then, you demonstrate the same partisanship that you accuse me of. I deny the partisanship. As a conservative, I mostly want to leave you alone and let you do what you want. As a liberal, you want to tell me what I can and can't do, what I can and can't own, what I can and can't decide for myself. That is the fundamental difference in ideology as I see it.

. . .

You don't want to leave me alone and let me do what I want, Brick. I want to drink water from a friend's well, knowing it hasn't been contaminated by poisonous hydraulic fracturing fluids. There are places within 100 miles of where I live that I can't do that. The people you really want left alone to do what they want are the ones putting that poison into the groundwater, and your slams on the EPA add to the chorus of deregulation so nobody will have tools to stop them.

[BigDrawMan]

. . .

But you advocate only the right dial it back. Come out and say both sides should do so and I can take you seriously. Until then, you demonstrate the same partisanship that you accuse me of. I deny the partisanship. As a conservative, I mostly want to leave you alone and let you do what you want. As a liberal, you want to tell me what I can and can't do, what I can and can't own, what I can and can't decide for myself. That is the fundamental difference in ideology as I see it.

. . .

You don't want to leave me alone and let me do what I want, Brick. I want to drink water from a friend's well, knowing it hasn't been contaminated by poisonous hydraulic fracturing fluids. There are places within 100 miles of where I live that I can't do that. The people you really want left alone to do what they want are the ones putting that poison into the groundwater, and your slams on the EPA add to the chorus of deregulation so nobody will have tools to stop them.

damn liberals
frack fluid is good for you
the texans who are invading our Commonwealth say so

[Flybrick]

You don't want to leave me alone and let me do what I want, Brick. I want to drink water from a friend's well, knowing it hasn't been contaminated by poisonous hydraulic fracturing fluids. There are places within 100 miles of where I live that I can't do that. The people you really want left alone to do what they want are the ones putting that poison into the groundwater, and your slams on the EPA add to the chorus of deregulation so nobody will have tools to stop them.

Again, soundbites. This is from the "where are you on the political spectrum" thread where I said the questions were too "either/or" and used the EPA as an example and you didn't like my singling out the EPA - which was for illustrative purposes only. So be it.

Laws concerning the situation you describe can and do exist because they are for the public good, both business and the citizens. Those that break the reasonable environmental protection laws should be prosecuted and/or sued if you can't drink that water.

Please don't say I'm for needless pollution. It's both untrue and unnecessarily insulting.

There are happy mediums, called compromises, that can and have existed to keep industry viable and the public health intact. I'd like to have clean water and air and I'd also like to have a industrially and technologically advance society continue. There is inevitable tension there, but it is doable.

This current administration's EPA is attempting to take it too far just as previous Administrations have been too lax.

I also would abolish the EPA. It should be part of the Department of the Interior. No need to have a separate headquarters and administrative staff with the resulting costs associated. I also believe that Congress abrogated its duties by allowing and continued funding for the EPA. Laws should be passed by Congress, not by beaureaucratic(sp?) fiat.

None of this has anything to do with the happy news of bin Laden's death and the clown show of the Obama Administration screwing it up politically since the announcement.

[silverscreenselect]

Well, SSS, I am disavowing you.

I"m glad that in general you agree with me, even though you disapprove of some of my rhetoric.

[Bob Juch]

You don't want to leave me alone and let me do what I want, Brick. I want to drink water from a friend's well, knowing it hasn't been contaminated by poisonous hydraulic fracturing fluids. There are places within 100 miles of where I live that I can't do that. The people you really want left alone to do what they want are the ones putting that poison into the groundwater, and your slams on the EPA add to the chorus of deregulation so nobody will have tools to stop them.

Again, soundbites. This is from the "where are you on the political spectrum" thread where I said the questions were too "either/or" and used the EPA as an example and you didn't like my singling out the EPA - which was for illustrative purposes only. So be it.

Laws concerning the situation you describe can and do exist because they are for the public good, both business and the citizens. Those that break the reasonable environmental protection laws should be prosecuted and/or sued if you can't drink that water.

Please don't say I'm for needless pollution. It's both untrue and unnecessarily insulting.

There are happy mediums, called compromises, that can and have existed to keep industry viable and the public health intact. I'd like to have clean water and air and I'd also like to have a industrially and technologically advance society continue. There is inevitable tension there, but it is doable.

This current administration's EPA is attempting to take it too far just as previous Administrations have been too lax.

I also would abolish the EPA. It should be part of the Department of the Interior. No need to have a separate headquarters and administrative staff with the resulting costs associated. I also believe that Congress abrogated its duties by allowing and continued funding for the EPA. Laws should be passed by Congress, not by bureaucratic fiat.

None of this has anything to do with the happy news of bin Laden's death and the clown show of the Obama Administration screwing it up politically since the announcement.

So you're for needful pollution? How much?

Are you aware of who created the EPA?

[TheCalvinator24]

The fact that this thread has degenerated into partisan sniping and divisiveness just proves that WASS (We Are So Screwed).

[SportsFan68]

You don't want to leave me alone and let me do what I want, Brick. I want to drink water from a friend's well, knowing it hasn't been contaminated by poisonous hydraulic fracturing fluids. There are places within 100 miles of where I live that I can't do that. The people you really want left alone to do what they want are the ones putting that poison into the groundwater, and your slams on the EPA add to the chorus of deregulation so nobody will have tools to stop them.

Again, soundbites. This is from the "where are you on the political spectrum" thread where I said the questions were too "either/or" and used the EPA as an example and you didn't like my singling out the EPA - which was for illustrative purposes only. So be it.

Laws concerning the situation you describe can and do exist because they are for the public good, both business and the citizens. Those that break the reasonable environmental protection laws should be prosecuted and/or sued if you can't drink that water.

Please don't say I'm for needless pollution. It's both untrue and unnecessarily insulting.

There are happy mediums, called compromises, that can and have existed to keep industry viable and the public health intact. I'd like to have clean water and air and I'd also like to have a industrially and technologically advance society continue. There is inevitable tension there, but it is doable.

This current administration's EPA is attempting to take it too far just as previous Administrations have been too lax.

I also would abolish the EPA. It should be part of the Department of the Interior. No need to have a separate headquarters and administrative staff with the resulting costs associated. I also believe that Congress abrogated its duties by allowing and continued funding for the EPA. Laws should be passed by Congress, not by beaureaucratic(sp?) fiat.

None of this has anything to do with the happy news of bin Laden's death and the clown show of the Obama Administration screwing it up politically since the announcement.

That was not a soundbite. Laws concerning the situation I described do not exist. Here's a website with an article titled "Bush EPA Official Admits Politics Dictated Fracking Exemption" at http://www.wolfenotes.com/2011/03/bush- ... exemption/ Fracking fluids were exempted from the Safe Drinking Water Act in 2005. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... =104565793

Colorado's Rep. Diana DeGette, who is interested in leaving me alone to do what I want, including getting a drink from a friend's well without worrying about whether it will give me cancer, has been fighting the exemption since it occurred. This year it's HB 1084 -- six years later, and still the damage is being done. It's no soundbite that people are dying of benzine-related cancer, but you want to leave them alone to do that.

You keep running up that "laws should be passed by Congress." Yes, they should be. The political support of you and people like you, people who call themselves conservatives and in favor of limiting the EPA's regulatory powers, make sure that they aren't. I think it's reasonable to want, and to be able to, get a drink from a well without worrying about it giving me cancer, and you said you wanted to leave me alone to do that. Or was that just a soundbite?

The EPA does not make laws. If it did, it would do what it could to prevent toxic contamination of our water. Bush and his cronies made sure they couldn't, and you and your chorus of anti-regulation buddies are helping make sure that legacy endures.

You say that compromise makes happy mediums. What compromise that permits the introduction of benzine into groundwater would you describe as happy?

[Flybrick]

The fact that this thread has degenerated into partisan sniping and divisiveness just proves that WASS (We Are So Screwed).

This and smilergrogan's

No, no, no, you've got it all wrong, you juicewagon jackbag. You stick it to the man, not take it. You take it to the streets. It's very important in life to know where to stick it and where to take it

are the best posts in this thread.

Sports, I tried to agree somewhat with you, but you are not having it. I'll live with that.

BobJuch, it was stupid. And not even funny which is worse.

Like Bill Maher, whom I think of when I read your posts, I'll just ignore the poorly rated show and instead continue to watch Barry's Gang That Can't Shoot Straight screw up the victory and national moral boost that is bin Laden's demise.

[Bob Juch]

The fact that this thread has degenerated into partisan sniping and divisiveness just proves that WASS (We Are So Screwed).

This and smilergrogan's

No, no, no, you've got it all wrong, you juicewagon jackbag. You stick it to the man, not take it. You take it to the streets. It's very important in life to know where to stick it and where to take it

are the best posts in this thread.

Sports, I tried to agree somewhat with you, but you are not having it. I'll live with that.

BobJuch, it was stupid. And not even funny which is worse.

Like Bill Maher, whom I think of when I read your posts, I'll just ignore the poorly rated show and instead continue to watch Barry's Gang That Can't Shoot Straight screw up the victory and national moral boost that is bin Laden's demise.

It wasn't a joke. Do you believe industry should be allowed to pollute others' (including public) lands? If so, to what degree?