Even if it’s not supposed to be, the thread title unavoidably leads people to that conclusion.
The thread title is a direct tu quoque to the Tom Delay thread.
Hey, why does mine look like a target?
For a while I worked at the front desk of a gym. All members were supposed to bring in an ID card that proved they were paying dues and were a member in good standing and scan it at the front desk as they were coming in. After a while, some front desk people started just waving people through because they knew them. I found out that many of these people had stopped paying dues months earlier because they realized that the front desk staff was just waving them by.
I put an end to this when I instituted my own policy of “No ID = No Workout”. I had several people bitch to me about it, and I asked them what was so hard about bringing in an ID card? The ones who were paying us started bringing it. The others just stopped showing up.
The fact that they were making an exception for this uppity bitch really worries me. We have better security at my gym than we do at the Capitol? That’s fucking stupid.
But when you challenge the statement “it’s an illegal war”, by asking for a cite for an indictment, that doesn’t include all these nuances. Perhaps you’re unwilling to debate the merits/claim that it’s illegal, but then to demand a standard of proof for the claim that you know full well is unachievable, is well, dickish, IMHO.
So - in summation (
) the statement was made that the war was illegal. Your position from this post seems to indicate that although you have an opinion on the morality of the war, you choose not to argue the possability of the claim that it’s also illegal, while acknowledging (it seems to me) that due to the realities of the situation involved, it’s virtually impossible for there to be a legal indictment of any type in this case, then demand proof that such an indictment has been issued as your only acceptable proof of the claim you wish not to debate.
see?
In case you’re wondering - from My pov, the war certainly seems to fall under descriptions from UN charters that would make it an ‘illegal invasion’, the US has indeed signed onto the UN charters, the claims made by US officials to the UN to justify and attempt to gain UN sanction of the invasion were (generously) knowingly overstated, therefore yea, seems to be an illegal invasion all around.
The liklihood of Bush et al being (in real time, history, I would hope, would correct this oversite) indicted, held legally (in any fashion) accountable for this approaches zero. however the illegality (or not) of the war was not the OP of the thread. would make for an interesting thread should some one start it, as long as the claims of “no indictment = obviously legal” should only get the appropriate “Point and laugh” response.
Oh great. I already got my one for the month and it’s only the damn fourth day of it. Now what the hell am I gonna do until friggin’ May?
If you think what McKinney can be dismissed because Tom DeLay’s a crook, then your accusation of tu quoque is the height of irony. This kind of shit is why politics nauseates me… nobody is responsible for anything, all you have to do is point at someone who is a little worse.
You dumbass, he was saying that this thread is a poor attempt a tu quoque in response to the other thread.
I think Dio’s problem is that Shodan made a reference to the Delay thread with this thread’s title. If he hadn’t have done that, then none of this tu quoque stuff would’ve been brought up.
This is the second message board I’ve visited during my way-too-short lunchbreak where debate on Delay’s resignation has been met with counterarguments regarding McKinney - as if the two transgressions were even slightly related, let alone in any way in proportion to one another. Fascinating.
STFU everyone, my black retarded parents died on 9/11 :mad:
Describing an obnoxious black woman as a **uppity ** bitch, probably is not the wisest thing to do. Unless of course you want us all to know what a rascist asshole you are.
Secondly, how the fuck do you equate a healthclub to Congress? She was elected to be there. If that cop did in fact recognize her, he should be fired. She was entitled to be there pin or no pin. Do you think the Marine guards ask the Prez. for ID?
Your brilliant retort aside, he did essentially dismiss the McKinney story in this very thread:
First learn to read, then to articulate, and you’ll grow up just fine.
I am sure it is the current talking point communicated to all the republican sycophants by blog and am radio. They all march lockstep, dare I say Goose Step to the tune of their leaders. Thats why dems can’t win, we got no leader. If we had one we would argue the merits of following a leader anyway.
Squash some ignorance for me. How does referring to someone as “uppity” have anything at all to do with their race?
If there is a rule in place that she’s supposed to have a pin on in order to bypass the metal detectors and didn’t, then she was wrong. It’s really that simple. I was comparing her to club members who had been waved through so many times that they come to expect it, like it seems she does.
I have a key card for my work. I have to have it on me in order to get into my building to do my job. I can remember my badge. Why can’t she remember her pin?
There is absolutely no excuse for them to have to put up a picture of her so that new guards know that she never wears her pin. This is a federal government building. The security should be tight enough that no pin = no skipping the metal detector.
Young whippersnapper, ain’tcha? It’s a code word from the age of civil rights riots - a condemnation by racist whites of blacks who didn’t “know their place”.
It is not all that difficult for a person whose full-time job involves knowing and greeting Congresspersons, who pass by him every day, to recognize the same ones day after day - and especially not one as, um, “distinctive” as McKinney.
But so what? Clinton got a blowjob, I tells ya! A blowjob!
My googling is obviously a bit off, but the online etymology dictionary defines it as:
It’s usually used with racial connotations. As well read as you are, Lord Ashtar, I find it difficult to believe you’ve never read the term applied as a racial epithet (Tom Sawyer, To Kill A Mockingbird, Gone With the Wind). There’s even a (somewhat militant) blog called uppitynegro.com.
I didn’t say it was a “non-story” because Tom Delay did worse. Nor did I say (as you claimed) that it “should be dismissed because Tom Delay did worse.”
In my first post, I expressed an opinion that it’s a rather insignificant story but not for any reason having to do with Tom Delay.
In subsequent posts I was saying that the OP tried to use this story as a tu quoque to the Tom Delay thread.
Aren’t you a U.S. citizen? I’d’ve thought these men were your vice-president and president as well.
Type louder. You keep posting it but they keep missing. Maybe if you type louder they will get it. I doubt it though…