What are you smoking? I agree that she was inspired by the first crying toddler, whose tears were unplanned, to create an anti-Bush photo spread, to which end she recruited more toddlers and made some of them cry. I never claimed she had it in mind from before the first kid cried. She had it mind before she herself made any kids cry.
Show me. Start a thread pitting your Dear Leader for doing so.
:rolleyes: That’s just ridiculous.
Daniel
Students of the logical fallacy, gather 'round.
And so it is here. RedFury claims I “…don’t the slightest bit of a problem dropping 2,000 lbs. bombs on thousands of [toddlers].”
I deny it.
Prove it, he says - start a thread Pitting Bush for doing it.
How did we reach the point where not having the slightest problem with and Pitting are the only options?
As it happens, I do have a great problem with it, but I believe it was done for a reasonable cause, and is the best of a set of poor choices. So I don’t care to Pit Mr. Bush for doing it… but it’s also not the case that I “don’t the slightest bit of a problem” with it.
Reasonable cause can justify dropping bombs on people, killing some or many of them, including toddlers. Making a toddler cry in pursuit of political or artistic goals should be met with “universal condemnation” however.
Enjoy,
Steven
Perhaps her “political goals” are helping people realize the consequences of their actions, thus warranting “reasonable cause.” For the record, the “reasonable causes” of the Bush administration are, in fact, “political goals.”
Any comment on Voyager’s post, Bricker?
Five fucking pages about NOTHING?!?!? Why didn’t I remember shit like this BEFORE I came back?
Bricker, you need to get off that one-trick pony.
John Mace, I forgot you sometimes aren’t better than Bricker’s echo.
The Rest of You, please quit trying to convince Bricker of something other than his preset worldview. It ain’t happened yet and it ain’t gonna.
I wouldn’t mind a response to any of mine, either. Particularly whether this concern for crying babies so transcends the immediate opportunity to pound a Catherine Coultier style “those damned liberals!” talking point that Bricker would, for example, support universal healthcare and save babies from untold actual suffering, or whether the political expedience of denying such coverage necessitates their suffering, and any other possible suffering enabled or caused by policies his president may support.
It was news to me.
Literally. I’d like to hear from more than one person - or better, to see some sort of association guideline or something. Does SAG or AFTRA have a list of guidelines about what you can and can’t do?
I’m willing to accept that if Voyager’s comments are true industry-wide, then I may well have been a bit naive. I’d like to hold out for a bit more in the way of supporting evidence, though.
Don’t ask, you couldn’t handle it. Trained professional, closed course, do not try this at home.
Actually, I take your point. But that leaves the question of when you became inspired to extend your outrage to persons you presumed would approve? Its like you set a moonbat trap, then snapped it yourself, and then claimed it worked because it would have worked, we already know how those moonbats are.
Hell, like I said, maybe she just did it for the money! Maybe she figured George Soros would by a thousand and send them to all of his friends, and maybe Bush would buy two.
We shall not leave our brother to wander the Turdswamp of Error, if he can be redeemed by the voices of Sweet Reason…
There’s a cliche of Liberals that anybody will accept our beliefs if we just talk long enough. 'Tain’t so, McGee. Some folks dig in their heels while others are simply too dense. Give it up; that pig won’t sing, no matter what.
That happens with conservatives too. In fact “reasonable people agree” may be the axiom which the OP applied when he shouldn’t have which started this whole train wreck.
Enjoy,
Steven
But did you agree with me before you disagreed with me? 
If Kerry doesn’t want to claim a presidency that he thinks is righfully his because he’s afraid someone will call him names, then he doesn’t deserve to be president.
I agree that an election is about the people, and not just the candidates. But show me the NYT or CNN headline that says “Kerry Really Won in '04”, and I’ll jump on the bandwagon.
What exactly are we supposed to “Enjoy”? Your contributions to the discussion? Just curious. It strikes me as odd to “sign” posts, anyway, since our name appears above them (and if you want people to know your REAL name, then change you username), but particularly strange to provide instructions to people on how to handle that post. “Enjoy,” as oppose to “dismiss,” for example, or “not enjoy.”
How about professional baby wrangler Steve Stonerock? Suffice to say, the comfort and happiness of a baby on a set is not this guy’s goal.
Enjoy,
Steven
What a fucking dumb-ass thing to say. Yes, I agree with **Bricker **quite a bit. I often disagree with him, too. I read the OP and shot off a 10 second post saying I agree with it. BFD. The rest of my posts here have been to refute the false claims other posters made about me.
Problem is, as far i can tell, you haven’t demonstrated that anyone has done this.
To the extent that i’ve shrugged my shoulders about her making kids cry, it has nothing to do with the political content of her message. I shrug because i don’t think it’s that big a deal. If some other photographer makes kids cry to protest against abortion, i might disagree with the political message, but i’ll still shrug regarding the actual acts of making toddlers unhappy.
And, as far as i can tell, that’s the position that most people here are taking. You seem to assume that, if someone:
a) thinks making kids cry is no big deal
and
b) takes you to task for the political partisanship of your OP
then (a) and (b) must have some sort of logical connection, whereby we minimize her actions because of her political message.
It just ain’t true.
What’s this “reasonable cause” you speak of? I’d like to see how it could possibly justify the daily carnage you’ve provoked.