Uh oh. I offended a Republican

[istara]

Ooops. Being an ignorant non-American, I've managed to offend a Republican.

http://pluto.beseen.com/boardroom/e/...?n=00127a00131

Thank God the Republicans are here to spread truth and confidence - even if the Democrats want to use fear, class warfare and mis-information to brainwash our college students.

Can anyone help me with a defence for my "middle-of-the-road mediocrity"?!

[zigaretten]

Well, let's see...you started out by telling him to "grow up" and then mentioning his "puerile rants", his "immaturity" and his "ignorance". Oh, I forgot that you accused him of intellectual dishonesty by ripping off Drudge. Und so weiter.
I would say that at this point you probably aren't going to have a particularly rational debate with the guy. My advice is to just launch straight into a "Republicans are Nazis who eat their babies" routine. That oughta leave him speechless.

Actually, my advice is this, if you want to debate issues then debate issues, if you want to insult people, then insult them. You can't do both. Any reply you make to this guy at this point is a waste of your time.

Ron

[Dryga_Yes]

Aargh, what an annoying ass. Another one of 'em us-and-them type of Reps. They give everyone else a bad name, they do.

The biggest flaw of his post IMO is that he never explained WHY a society of haves and have-nots are better than one where "everyone is doomed to mediocrity". His main grudge seems to be, I quote, ...At least realize that we're not going to cripple ourselves just like you have crippled yourselves with all of your environmental regulations and taxes and laws... that *cough* everyone else has CRIPPLED themselves. What you should do is to quote avarage GDPs from USA and, for instance, Scandinavia (Scandinavia being _the_ most left-wing, high-taxed countries in the Western world.) and ask him just how big a difference there is. If you look at an estimated "conservativeness" and the GDP, there really is no correlation. And IF you really wanted everyone in the world to model themselves after the most economically succesful countries, we really oughta be doing exactly the same thing as MONACO and LICHTENSTEIN, not the US.

Global warming -- do I really have to comment on that? An inanimate carbon rod should be able to shoot that argument down. Mention Rio '93 and the "safety clause" /dunno what it's called in English/ and how it specifically stated that EVERYTHING that we even suspect could be environmentally dangerous is to be assumed unsafe until proven safe, not the other way around -- as it was the only way to deal with things as potentially harmful as this, and avoiding a new DDT.

His little slams about Europeans not having jobs or enough food to feed our families, about US having a bigger army, about the US (incorrectly) getting the most immigration, etc. -- shoudl just be ignored. Don't stoop to his level there.

[istara]

Actually, my advice is this, if you want to debate issues then debate issues, if you want to insult people, then insult them. You can't do both. Any reply you make to this guy at this point is a waste of your time. Ron [/b]

That's good advice. Unfortunately he got me so mad I've done both. And doubtless I wasted my time in so many ways, but I feel better.

[Muad'Dib]

Originally posted by zigaretten
"Republicans are Nazis who eat their babies"

WHO TOLD YOU?!?!?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[ShinyTop]

I thought they ate liberal babies.

[Jackmannii]

Originally posted by istara

That's good advice. Unfortunately he got me so mad I've done both. And doubtless I wasted my time in so many ways, but I feel better. [/b]

You've discovered the secret of the SDMB, istara! Congratulations!!

If blowing off steam here helps prevent you from eating any Republican babies, then we've done our job.

[DPWhite]

Originally posted by istara
Ooops. Being an ignorant non-American, I've managed to offend a Republican.

http://pluto.beseen.com/boardroom/e/...?n=00127a00131

Can anyone help me with a defence for my "middle-of-the-road mediocrity"?!

Well a refuatation might go like this:

Do you have a cite for what Democrats want? I thought we wanted a higher minimum wage, a patients bill of rights and a balanced budget. Where in the party platform do you find fear and class warfare? It just isn't there.

This is in fact an ad hominem argument and nothing more. Presumably it means you concede that you cannot argue by the rules using facts and reasoning. (You as in the Republican).

Fear. The FBI has now determined that it is right-wingers that are spreading the anthrax to liberal members of the Senate and media outlets. This follows bombings and assassinations at abortion clinics. These people are at least the fellow travellers of Republicans.

Class-warfare (please note that the above is real warfare waged by right-wingers). I don't recall anyone chopping off heads of aristocracy in this country. But I do notice that rich people do not spend their convictions for drug and alcohol offenses in jails and prisons as poor people do, with the removal of their right to vote. I notice that Republicans argue that the ultra wealthy and corporations need big tax cuts, while middle class and poor people do not get anything close to the same percentage, much less actual amount.

Mis-information? Anything in particular, or are you suggesting that merely disagreeing with you is a lie? Cite please?

Clearly Republicans of the kind that make these accusations are uneducated, assuming that people smart enough to get into college would be susceptible to any of these fallacies and not have the ability to look things up and decide for themselves.

[istara]

You guys are so wonderful! I am still feeling bad for stooping to this guy's level (and I felt like I flamed him) but I found his opinion so offensive, and so ill-thought out.

Thank you for all the support and the facts/argument. I am not a Democrat or a Republican, not being American. But you have been so helpful. I love the SDMB!

[Tejota]

Originally posted by ShinyTop
I thought they ate liberal babies.

Same thing, all babies are liberal. It takes years of indoctrination to make a conservative. By that time they are tough and stringy and not good eatn' anymore.

[rjung]

Originally posted by istara
Ooops. Being an ignorant non-American, I've managed to offend a Republican.

That's like apologizing for breathing -- Republicans get offended at anything.

"Those two men are holding hands! I'm offended!"
"I don't like that song you're listening to! I'm offended!"
"You don't worship my god? I'm offended!"
"Your skin color isn't the same as mine! I'm offended!"
"You dress funny! I'm offended!"
"You call that art? I'm offended!"
"You dare to disagree with me? I'm offended!"

[Grim_Beaker]

Those are all in the same category as these sentiments about Democrats...

"That woman has decided to be a stay at home mom! What a sell out to the womens movement!"
"Don't like my profanity riddled music which advocates illegal acts? Oppressor!"
"You're a christian? You myth believing Ignoramus!"
"You aren't caucasian? You must have been oppressed!"
"You dress conservatively? You're such a square!"
"You can easily recognize it's a painting of a horse! You call that art?"
"You dare to disagree with me? I'm offended!"



Grim

[manhattan]

Originally posted by istara
Ooops. Being an ignorant non-American, I've managed to offend a Republican.

Well. There will be no tee time for you this week, young man.

[Freedom]

The FBI has now determined that it is right-wingers that are spreading the anthrax to liberal members of the Senate and media outlets.

I must have missed those arrests of right-wing fanaticals.


Of course there are no domestic left-wing fanaticals, and the FBI is all knowing enough to know that it is right-wing fanticals sending the anthrax, but not all knowing enough to actually catch one.

...and we will just ignore all the envelopes mailed from overseas....

[tracer]

I'll betcha Al'Qaeda qualifies as "right wing".

[Sofa King]

"Even in Communist countries, the right wing prevails." --Joseph Heller

[Shodan]

The FBI has now determined that it is right-wingers that are spreading the anthrax to liberal members of the Senate and media outlets. This follows bombings and assassinations at abortion clinics. These people are at least the fellow travellers of Republicans.

Proof, or withdrawal of statement, please.

Regards,
Shodan

[december]

Originally posted by istara
I've managed to offend a Republican.

We Republicans are committed to polluting the air and water, starving the poor, forcing the elderly to live on dog food, doing away with the Bill of Rights, and reinstituting slavery.

What could you possibly have said that was worse than the truth?

[tracer]

december wrote:

We Republicans are committed to polluting the air and water, starving the poor, forcing the elderly to live on dog food, doing away with the Bill of Rights, and reinstituting slavery.

You left out "bringing back the chastity belt."

[Hemlock]

Quote: "You people in other countries had better learn something about America. We didn't get where we are by following the example of you guys. We think for ourselves and we *lead*..... etc etc

This is not a Republican speaking, but an "ugly American". Americans living overseas - of any political stripe - cringe when someone starts talking like this. Don't worry about it. (I should add that the anti-American comments from ill-informed Europeans and others can be pretty embarrassing too.)

[Freedom]

...and arming children with cop-killer shooting plastic handguns equiped with bayonet mounts and high capacity magazines.

[istara]

Originally posted by Hemlock
This is not a Republican speaking, but an "ugly American". Americans living overseas - of any political stripe - cringe when someone starts talking like this. Don't worry about it. (I should add that the anti-American comments from ill-informed Europeans and others can be pretty embarrassing too.) [/b]

Yeah I know. What I think upset me also is that I know so many great Americans, and none of them are anything like him. I sincerely hope he is a dying minority. He's the sort of (non-representative) stereotype of America that is fuelling a lot of this Al Qaeda stuff.

[Freedom]

. He's the sort of (non-representative) stereotype of America that is fuelling a lot of this Al Qaeda stuff.

A little bit more of that and you will rile me up enough to take you to the pit. He and his type have NOTHING to do with "this Al Qaeda stuff." You need to straighten yourself out on that matter real quick. I seem to be tolerating your ignorance without flying an airplane full of people into your home. The only people to blame for 9/11 are the terrorists. The only things fueling them is religous fanaticism and hatred.


Your thinking is along the lines of:


She shouldn't have been dressed like that, she was asking to be raped.

He deserves what he got, he knows we don't like blacks dating white girls around here.





Stop blaming the victim.

[istara]

Please, I really don't want to get into conflict with you as well! And of course I don't think that, please don't twist my words.

How can you even compare having a racist, bigoted attitude to someone dressing a certain way, or an interracial relationship? But even though I hate what he said, I would die to defend his freedom of speech to say it.

But if I was an American, I am sure the attitudes of people like him would make me cringe in shame the same way the attitudes of the BNP and neo-Nazis in the UK make me ashamed.

[Biggirl]

What's your beef exactly Freedom?


This is a quote from "the angry Republican":

"You people in other countries had better learn something about America. We didn't get where we are by following the example of you guys. We think for ourselves and we *lead*.....

To which Hemlock replies:

Originally posted by Hemlock
This is not a Republican speaking, but an "ugly American". Americans living overseas - of any political stripe - cringe when someone starts talking like this. Don't worry about it. (I should add that the anti-American comments from ill-informed Europeans and others can be pretty embarrassing too.) [/b]

To which istara said:

Yeah I know. What I think upset me also is that I know so many great Americans, and none of them are anything like him. I sincerely hope he is a dying minority. He's the sort of (non-representative) stereotype of America that is fuelling a lot of this Al Qaeda stuff.

Then you, Freedom challenge istara to the Pit. Well, I agree completely with istara. It is stupid, ugly, self-centered claptrap like what that so-called Republican said that drives much of the resentment against the USA.

I ain't scared of ya. Wanna Pit me?

[december]

Originally posted by Biggirl It is stupid, ugly, self-centered claptrap like what that so-called Republican said that drives much of the resentment against the USA.[/b]

Biggirl, your comment smacks of bigotry like:

• It is the money-grubbing nature of Jewish businessmen that drives much of the resentment against Jews.
• It is the brutal nature of American Indian rampages and scalpings that drives much of the resentment against Indians.
• It is the [fill in your own epithet] of Blacks that drives much of the resentment against African-Americans.

Aren't you uncomfortable making a statement similar to those?

Furthermore the entire thesis is ridiculous, both in theory and in practice. Extremist Muslims hate Americans so much that they have attacked us against and again. Their media call Americans vicious names over and over. How can one believe that the real problem was some insensitive American words?

In practice, the hatred is promoted by demagogues, just as racism and anti-Semitism are. These demagogues latch onto anything they can. They use lies, like the one about Israel having attacked the WTC. No matter how PC our words are, hate-mongers will find a reason to promote hatred.

[Dryga_Yes]

Um, december, NO.

Your statements were all generalizations. Istara's wasn't. I quote:
""He's the sort of (non-representative) stereotype of America...""

So, for instance, istara's statement would be more like: ""The unrepresentative money-grubbing nature of that Jewish businessman drives much of the resentment against Jews."" instead of ""It is the money-grubbing nature of Jewish businessmen that drives much of the resentment against Jews."" Can you honestly not see the difference?

[december]

Originally posted by Dryga_Yes
Um, december, NO.

Your statements were all generalizations. Istara's wasn't.

I was referring to Biggirl's statement. Please re-read my post.

[Biggirl]

Another clue would have been when I said "so-called Republican".

Look, I never enter into these Dem vs Rep debates because both sides end up looking rather narrow-minded and silly. But this is not about Republicans, unless you believe that Republicans all think like the Republican who was quoted.


Or did your knee jerk so high it hindered your line of vision and you really didn't read the post. Let me pull out the relevant words:

Hemlock: "This is not a Republican speaking, but an "ugly American".

istara:"He's the sort of (non-representative) stereotype of America. . ."

Biggirl: "It is stupid, ugly, self-centered claptrap like what that so-called Republican said. . ."

What the guy said was stupid, egotistical bullshit. Attitudes like his foster resentment towards the US. If you want to claim him for the Republicans and defend what he says go right ahead december.

[istara]

Originally posted by december Extremist Muslims hate Americans so much that they have attacked us against and again. Their media call Americans vicious names over and over.

Islamic media (newspapers/TV) doesn't, nor does Arabic media. Some terrorist propaganda (eg Bin Laden's videos) probably does, but that's not what I would describe as "media" in the general sense. I am not sure what would define as "extremist Islamic media" because I'm not aware that I've seen any - please bear in mind that even devout Muslims believe terrorism to be anti-Islamic - but I just thought I should clarify.

For a good sample of Middle East media - they syndicate copy from masses of different newspapers - try http://www.zawya.com. It's primarily business news, but they post a lot of opinion pieces from the Jordan Times, Lebanon Daily Star, UAE Gulf News, etc.

Other than that I'm done with this argument because it's already opened more than a can of worms, and I was new to these boards when I posted, and didn't realise how much argument it would provoke. So sorry for that.

[Biggirl]

Don't worry istara, your doing fine. This is Great Debates where the posters live to see a fresh cans of worms opened up.

[istara]

Oh my god. The guy who orginally infuriated me has just updated his site, blaming the extent of the WTC tragedy on environmental protesters.

Oh my god. http://www.geocities.com/leobairn

Oh my god. I will never go back there.

[Captain Amazing]

Just a nitpick. In the novel The Ugly American, which I believe the phrase was taken from, "ugly American" is not a criticism. The novel takes place in a small South-East Asian country, and is actually a series of related vignettes, all dealing with US relations with the country. While the American diplomats engage in ineffective positioning and hobnobbing with the country's upper class, providing U.S. aid for programs of dubious utility, ineffective against the appeal of the communists and blind to the needs of the common people, the "ugly American" (who is, in the book, an engineer), and a few other people like him, choose to go to the small farming villages of the country, live with the native population, and work with them on projects that will directly benefit them. (The ugly American and a villager create a cheap, effective water pump. Another character, who is a farmer, brings in new breeds of chicken to strenghten the breeding lines of the natives' chickens) The book makes it clear that what will save US foreign policy are people like the ugly American, who isn't concerned with being one of the "beautiful people" or knowing the right people, but who goes into the country with a real desire to help the people, lives like they do, and is humble enough to realize that he can learn from them, as well as teaching them.

[rjung]

I wonder if Fredom believes that the terrorists attacked us because they're jealous of our freedom and liberty, too(*).

(* = As opposed to, like, anything the United States might've actually done, such as overthrowing democratically-elected leaders or supporting local repressive governments)

[december]

Originally posted by rjung
I wonder if Fredom believes that the terrorists attacked us because they're jealous of our freedom and liberty, too(*).

(* = As opposed to, like, anything the United States might've actually done, such as overthrowing democratically-elected leaders or supporting local repressive governments)

Riiiight! The Taliban are deeply committed to democracy and liberty, so it's only natural that they were mortally offended by the idea of overthrowing leaders and government repression. Huh?

[Captain Amazing]

Originally posted by december
Riiiight! The Taliban are deeply committed to democracy and liberty, so it's only natural that they were mortally offended by the idea of overthrowing leaders and government repression. Huh?

Well, the Taliban didn't really do anything to us in particular. You probably want to ask if Al-Qaida is deeply committed to democracy and liberty.

[Jackmannii]

Originally posted by rjung
I wonder if Fredom believes that the terrorists attacked us because they're jealous of our freedom and liberty, too(*).

(* = As opposed to, like, anything the United States might've actually done, such as overthrowing democratically-elected leaders or supporting local repressive governments)

Yes, I'm sure the terrorists were still highly steamed about the CIA's role in ousting Mossadegh in Iran in the '50s. It's hard to think of other "democratically-elected leaders" in the Middle East who've been overthrown by the United States.
As for "supporting local repressive governments", this sort of logic works only if an essential component of "repression" is being friendly to the United States, in which case you can cite Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and so on. When it comes to repressive regimes like those in Iraq, Libya and Iran, (which in addition to denying fundamental rights to their citizens also war on their neighbors, encourage terrorists and build up arsenals of insanely destructive weaponry), we're hardly "supportive" - unless you define sanctions and military action as "support".

[tracer]

istara wrote:

Oh my god. The guy who orginally infuriated me has just updated his site, blaming the extent of the WTC tragedy on environmental protesters.

Environmental protestors?!

Shucks. And here I thought the WTC tragedy was caused by communist pot-smoking lesbians in the ACLU making protest marches. It's all part of their plot to undermine the American family!

[Freedom]

Biggirl

I ain't scared of ya. Wanna Pit me?

Please.......

If you're on the rag and looking for a fight, then keep on looking. Go take your third party offended attitude elsewhere.


istara

But if I was an American, I am sure the attitudes of people like him would make me cringe in shame the same way the attitudes of the BNP and neo-Nazis in the UK make me ashamed.

I agree.

However, there is not even one second when I think he, or anyone like him is responsible for 9/11. Your implication that he was partly responsible was what set me off.


If I had to pick one reason they hate us, it would be that we do not suscribe to the militant pyshcho form of Islam they believe in. Their world view NEEDS a devil to fight against.

I was new to these boards when I posted, and didn't realise how much argument it would provoke.

Well, we always appreciate fresh thoughts and new blood around here. Don't take it personally and stick around. There are plenty of posters around here, and we run the gamut from all the political positions you can think of to those you don't even know exist

rjung

I wonder if Fredom believes that the terrorists attacked us because they're jealous of our freedom and liberty, too

Nope.

I think they hate us and everyone else who would stand against their psychotic vision of the way the world should be. America just happens to be the biggest kid on the block at the moment, so we get the honor of being their main target.

Believe it or not rjung, they hate you personally, just like they hate the rest of us.

I'm actually wondering if you really beleive that Al Queada cares even one little bit about democracy.

[Guinastasia]

Originally posted by Freedom


If you're on the rag and looking for a fight, then keep on looking.

Freedom-that was absolutely uncalled for. That was just low.

[Biggirl]

Originally posted by Freedom
Biggirl

Please.......

If you're on the rag and looking for a fight, then keep on looking. Go take your third party offended attitude elsewhere.

Brilliant. Your debating skills really put me to shame. I'm sorry I even took up for the newbie. I am bowed.

So do you want to address my point now?

[Kimstu]

tracer: Environmental protestors?!

Yeah, according to the link, asbestos helps keep buildings from collapsing. (I don't get it either.)

I think Freedom and Biggirl both have a point, to wit:

- Terrorists hate and attack us because they are violent, fanatical nutcases.

- Many non-terrorists resent and fear us (and thereby create a more receptive climate for promoting anti-American terrorism) not because they are violent fanatical nutcases, but in response to some of our own actions and/or stupid, ugly, self-centered claptrap spouted by some Americans.

Those two statements don't actually contradict each other, so I don't think that Freedom and Biggirl necessarily even have a debate here (which makes it all the more a pity that Freedom thought it necessary to toss in a gratuitous menstruation joke. If I thought Freedom was being unnecessarily aggressive, I wouldn't express it by taunting him about "testosterone poisoning" or some such).

And Jackmannii, yeah, I think you can count Saudi Arabia as a repressive government; moreover, its repression is largely made possible by lavish arms purchases from the US.

Thanks to Captain Amazing for trying to rescue the reputation of the much-maligned original "Ugly American", but I'm afraid it's a lost cause.

[december]

Originally posted by Kimstu
Yeah, according to the link, asbestos helps keep buildings from collapsing. (I don't get it either.)[/b]

I saw this explained somewherem but can't fing the link right now. Here's the story, as I remember it.

Those who built the WTC knew that if the vertical steel beams buckled, the bulding would collapse, so those beams were well-protected by astestos. The law prhibiting asbestos from being used in construction went into effect when the towers (or one of them) had the bottom 64 floors done. So, the remaining floors were protected with a less effective heat insulator.

An expert made a prediction at that time of the sort of collapse that actually occured.

I found the link. I first saw this in http://www.andrewsullivan.com/ Sullivan linked to the column http://www.accesstoenergy.com/view/ate/s41p1043.htm

Not so widely quoted – apparently spiked by most media – was the statement, often made about the Trade Towers in the 1970s by expert in the insulation of steel building columns Herbert Levine, that ''if a fire breaks out above the 64th floor, that building will fall down.'' See ''Asbestos Could Have Saved WTC Lives'' by Steven Milloy, Fox News, September 14, 2001 at http://www.foxnews.com.

[GIGObuster]

I posted this before so take note next time december:

One graphic explains the layout of the columns affected:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/0109/13/g...ldcollapse.gif

The more I think about it, the original crash severed many of the colums, if asbestos was used as a coating, I think it would have not done much of a difference. Asbestos does a good job with a regular fire, but this fire was fueled with hundreds of gallons of jet fuel and the impact and heat would have stripped most of the coating. Incidentally, many reports do mention that the steel colums did have fire protection.

There are reasons why I am a skeptic of the Junk science guy:
http://www.skeptictank.org/hs/tscience.htm

There's a huge irony at work here, of course. It's science, after all, that has effectively laid some of those controversies to rest (no authoritative study has found that EMFs from overhead power lines cause cancer, for example). But others, such as global warming, are still part of a serious ongoing debate. And so it should be. If there is one clear way in which science is abused, it is by reducing its deliberate, complex method of discovery to the kind of epigrams that you can display on a coffee mug. Yet, here is the self-proclaimed "Junkman" calling the ball dead on controversy after controversy.

On top of that, FOX and the Cato institute do not look to me to be really fair sources of information.

And how scientific one can be if we do not have all the data yet?:
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/2001...struction.html

``We believe that any speculation regarding the specifics of these tragic events would be irresponsible,'' the statement said. ``For obvious reasons, MYA has no further comment at this time.''

And from the original article:

We may now be paying a horrible price for junk science-fueled asbestos hysteria.

IMHO The word “may” is used like an escape hatch, very cute for a reporter that claims to deal with science. I think his opinion in this case is junk science.

[Jackmannii]

Originally posted by Kimstu
Jackmannii, yeah, I think you can count Saudi Arabia as a repressive government; moreover, its repression is largely made possible by lavish arms purchases from the US.

I made an effort to be as clear on this point as possible in responding to rjung, Kimstu, but perhaps my words were not sufficiently crystalline.

A statement was made concerning our supposed responsibility for creating a climate that encourages terrorism, in part through our "supporting local repressive governments".

My response was intended to show that while we do support governments in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait etc. that are repressive, we act through sanctions or other measures against other regimes that not only deny their citizens fundamental rights, but also menace their neighbors and/or support murderous terrorist groups (i.e. Libya, Iran, Iraq etc.). Syria dominates Lebanon and its citizens have no voice in electing a Syrian leader. There's another viciously repressive regime we have taken military action against (remember the Taliban?). Yet there's considerable local sympathy in the Middle East toward these toxic regimes and corresponding dislike of the U.S. for countering their plots.

So there seem to be a lot of people, in the Middle East and in this country, who excuse the behavior of the worst offenders and define "local repressive governments" as those who get U.S. backing.

It's going to be an uphill battle to find viable supporters of republican forms of government in that region. Efforts need to be made. But at least in the short term, our strategic/economic interests compel us to support some less than wonderful leaders while reining in the most threatening and warlike ones. And perhaps we can mount a better p.r. campaign to show people that, for example, while sanctions have taken a toll on the Iraqi people thanks to their leader's intransigence, there are plenty of people in surrounding nations who owe their security and possibly their lives to our having clamped down on Saddam.

[december]

Originally posted by GIGObuster
I posted this before so take note next time december

Sorry

... if asbestos was used as a coating, I think it would have not done much of a difference. Asbestos does a good job with a regular fire, but this fire was fueled with hundreds of gallons of jet fuel and the impact and heat would have stripped most of the coating. Incidentally, many reports do mention that the steel colums did have fire protection.

I know nothing about structural engineering. I do feel that it's ridiculous to blame the environmentalists. Asbestos is dangers. It should have been banned. If it was an essential component of the WTC, then the builders needed to deal with the problem.

On top of that, FOX and the Cato institute do not look to me to be really fair sources of information.

AFAIK both organizations are accurate with their facts, even though you may not agree with all their opinions. Do you have any exapmles where their facts have been reported inaccurately?

IMHO The word “may” is used like an escape hatch, very cute for a reporter that claims to deal with science. I think his opinion in this case is junk science.

I agree with you, GB. Even if it was a mistake to ban asbestos, it was still be the responsibility of the builders to build a safe structure.

[Biggirl]

My larger point was that when Democrats and Republicans start squabbling both sides tend to lose their minds. Freedom wants to Pit istara for making a valid observation about jingoistic hyperbole. december accuses me of making broad generalizations about Republicans when I made it clear I was not speaking about Republicans (or at least I thought I made it clear). jrung eludes that being attacked by terrorist was some how the United States fault because our own evil practices. . ..

It's disheartening to see usually reasonable people responding to anything and everything through this blinding and distorting veil of partisanship.

[december]

Originally posted by Biggirl
december accuses me of making broad generalizations about Republicans when I made it clear I was not speaking about Republicans (or at least I thought I made it clear.)

You were clear, []Biggirl[/b]; I was unclear. I meant to object to what I saw as broad generalizations about Americans.

[Jackmannii]

As for the "breaking news" on Leo's site tying the extent of the WTC tragedy to actions by "environmental protesters":

Asbestosis is a public health issue, Leo, not a point of contention between environmental activists and their opponents.

You're making about as much sense here as an anti-tobacco activist who argues that the WTC attack proves the need to ban smoking completely in all buildings (after all, if smokers are all forced to go outside to light up, they'll be protected in case terrorists fly a jet into their building). Think of all the lives that could be saved!

Moron.

[rjung]

Originally posted by Biggirl
jrung eludes that being attacked by terrorist was some how the United States fault because our own evil practices. . ..

Dunno who this jrung person is, but if you're referring to me, please cite where in this thread I actually wrote such a statement.

My point was -- and remains -- that saying Islamic fundamentalist terrorists attacked the United States simply because they were "jealous of our freedom" is not only overly simplistic, but simply wrong. The issue is far more complicated than that, as I hope you'll agree.

Originally posted by Jackmannii
As for "supporting local repressive governments", this sort of logic works only if an essential component of "repression" is being friendly to the United States, in which case you can cite Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and so on.

Actually, I was thinking of US-friendly countries like Qatar and Bahrain, whose governments get lots of US support because of continued access to cheap oil, but haven't exactly been supportive of the locals. At least, I hear they find it repressive...