Here’s something to make you cry – or at least throw another hissy fit:
The children went to sleep believing they were safe. And then Israel targeted them as terrorists
I am about two-thirds through a book on the subversion and demise of the Roman Republic and its transformation into an empire. There are names in there I haven’t seen since I flunked/dropped out of second year Latin in 1956 – name like Sulla, Crassius, Pompey, Caesar, Clodius, Cato and Cicero. Looking at this thread and others featuring our friends Bricker (who may or may not be channeling the Federalist Society)and John Mace (who appears to have a straight line to the RNC), and especially stuff like the above quote and stuff I see coming out of the mouths of the magistrates of the present administration, its running dogs and the windbags who pass as political commentators, I see disturbing parallels in rhetoric, attitude, self-aggrandizement, rigidity, and over-riding ambition and ruthlessness. Since Godwin Law of Debate discourages reference to Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, I will in future compare my political adversaries to personalities of the last century BCE.
Otherwise this is about as silly a thread as we have been burdened with around here for some time. It is ironic that one of the time honored put downs on these boards is the mocking cry of “Won’t someone think of the children?”
If you’re going to stoop to the level of president Bush’s ‘debate’ tactics, at least have the decency to name a few of those you suspect. Rjung, elucidator, samclem and clothahump for example. That way the accused could at least know that they stand accused, and what they are accused of. Then they could step in to defend themselves as necessary. This shadow accusation technique was invalid when senator McCarthy did it, and it’s invalid today.
I’d still like to see Bricker’s cites as offered in this post;
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker
By “a pass” I meant the numerous people who feel it was not a particularly bad thing; that it was no big deal.
Still need the cites for that?
I’m not seeing the numerous people, and as there are not numerous people saying this, it amounts to what can only guess is a pre-made assumption on Bricker’s part that liberals on the board do not care about cruelty to children; clearly something which needs to be addressed.
Balls, I totally mucked that up. Could a friendly mod please delete my prior post?
What I was trying to say is; could Bricker please answer the question I posed earlier in the thread? It’s the third time i’ve asked it now.
Whoa – what’s Clothahump doing in that group? :dubious:
I hope so - I recollect that we’ve agreed any number of times. 
Two things: first, it isn’t just a matter of his deserving the Presidency; it’s a matter of our not deserving a second term of Bush. (Hell, we didn’t even deserve the first term! :D)
Second, it wasn’t like he had the option of walking up and claiming the Presidency by contesting Ohio. It was more like: the outcome was clearly tainted, but at the time Kerry made the call to concede, it certainly looked extremely improbable that enough problems could be verified to reverse the outcome, especially given that Ohio, like Florida in 2000, was GOP-controlled - governor, secretary of state, legislature, everything. So if we were unable to get a hand recount in Florida, what were our chances in Ohio?
If I’d been in Kerry’s position, I wouldn’t have thought the Presidency was rightfully mine; I would have had doubts that it rightfully belonged to Bush, but I would figure I was looking at odds of at least 100-1 against being able to successfully contest it; maybe even 1000-1. In a situation like that, I can quite understand why Kerry decided to just give it up. It was an incredible longshot at the Presidency, versus almost certain loss of cred.
That’s why I don’t think it should have been his call.
I’m not on any bandwagon other than the one that says the outcome should have been scrutinized more carefully than it was, by persons or agencies not beholden to either party. For instance, how many precincts had long lines to vote, where were they, and how long were the waits? Can we get some sort of estimate of how many votes those long lines chased away? I’ve never claimed the 2004 election was stolen (though I’m still adamant that 2000 was), but I’m still not happy with what’s known and what’s not.
Clothy’s obviously a deep cover, toddler hating liberal plant; else the exception that proves the rule.
A “point” which you were just about to provide some corroboration for, right? Right?
I gave you credit earlier for understanding the First Rule of Holes. That credit is hereby withdrawn.
:wally
How many do you want?
That’s a link to Stanford’s humor magazine, and I cannot find any reference to “Steve Stonerock” that does not derive from this site. In other words, I think you’re offering, as a cite, a satrical piece about a fictional person.
Forgive me if I don’t consider this persuasive.
Wow, that was fucking outrageous. So you’re not even reading the things you quote now? What is the connection? He said he’d shrug even if he disagreed with the message. His statement you choose to quote to support yourself is in direct opposition to your point.
It is obvious at this point that Bricker thinks of the Pit as a game where people can be as stupid as they want to be as long as they’re also being arrogant and cruel; a place where one can make any kind of statement without support or accountability. At least, I hope this is the case. He’s clearly intelligent in many ways, but sometimes I suspect Bricker is nevertheless not very bright.
Bricker, the vast majority here are not saying it’s okay because it’s anti-Bush. I haven’t seen anyone who has seriously said that, but I may have missed some nutjob. At any rate no one has said, for example, that it’s not okay when TV does it, but okay in this case because it’s being used against Bush. If you came here so certain that was what would happen that you cannot now see what people are actually posting, you need to seriously examine whether you’re turning into a bigot.
Most of us just assumed your rhetoric was broken, but now it looks like you’re so far gone you actually believe this shit, that “liberals” are so morally bankrupt they’d cheer at babies crying for their cause. Fuck you, man. To think I once respected you.
“Numerous” cites from different people, please.
Oh, and your mhendo one doesn’t count; your post of “numerous people” was post #93, whilst his post you’re quoting from was post #239; after yours. Let’s look again at the context of your post;
Clearly, you were basing your opinion that the cruelty of making these toddlers cry on posts prior to the top one I posted there; So, please, numerous cites from people who said they didn’t think what was done to the toddlers by the artist was that big a deal. I can find only one, myself.
Sorry, that last part wasn’t clear. Let me try again.
Clearly, you were basing your opinion that the cruelty of making these toddlers cry was being dismissed by posters in posts prior to the top one I posted there.
But this still skates blithely past the main point you keep hammering on in this thread, which is the alleged connection between my attitude to making babies cry, on the one hand, and my dislike for George Bush, on the other.
How many times must i say that the two are unrelated before you’ll concede that this might be true? You said that, in your OP, you were"taking swipe at the people here who would forgive or minimize [the photography collection] because of its political tenor," and you keep insisting that our subsequent arguments have proven you correct.
Yet i cannot find a single person in this thread who has said, or even hinted, that their attitude to making babies cry is in any way connected to their political preferences. If you want to assert this connection, then it’s up to you to demonstrate that it exists; it is not enough for you simply to show that some people (a) aren’t especially concerned about making babies cry, and (b) dislike George Bush. You need to demonstrate that there is some logical connection between these positions for those people. Until you do, you’re talking out your ass.
I realize you’ve managed to avoid this issue because it is not conducive to your political position, but until you address it, you have no credibility.
You have to commend a guy for taking the strategy of, “I’m going to complain about something petty, and anticipate that [insert enemy here] will attempt to minimize it,” and when [insert enemy here] appears and, not being of the mind to be outraged over something petty, and says as much, you can play “I told you so,” and commend yourself for your prescience in predicting the ice-cold heart of [insert enemy here] in regarding the matter.
Jeeze, are you for real?
Oh. :smack:
Embarrassed to admit I never got this point until just now.
OK, I concede there’s no way to prove that assertion. I have a conviction that it’s true… but I can’t show that those that are giving her a pass now would have condemned her tactics if her pictures were labelled “Democrat Election Challenge Strategy,” and the like. I have no proof, and no evidence except the general behavior on this board.
Was that a rhetorical question?
And I accept your three cites (although Jackmannii’s strikes me as disagreeing with what he/she sees as hyperbole, not that the artist’s actions weren’t cruel). HowieReynolds’s was the one I spotted myself, btw. Now let’s have a look at those posters who didn’t give it a pass;
Hey, i’m in there! 
Anyway, by my count, that’s 10 people (not instances; some people condemned her more than once, but i’ve only put in one from each person) thinking the artist was cruel to make the kids cry, against your 3 thinking it was no big deal. I really don’t see how you can square this with your posts;
It seems clear to me that by saying “she does get a pass her”, you were referring to the boards (or that thread). Yet many more thought the artist was in the wrong, on top of which three is not what i’d call “numerous”.
You painted a picture of a majority of uncaring posters who (as mhendo points out) you thought would not give her a pass if the artist had made pro-Bush art. As many of the responses show, those people would be against it no matter what political statement was being made. Since the views expressed in your posts don’t seem to reflect the actual nature of the thread, i’d be interested in knowing where you got them from.
So, just to help with final clarification:
Are you one of those Fireman hating republican types?
Now I’ve no proof that you are, not even a conviction, just a little bit of a gut feeling that maybe Bricker could be one of those fireman hating conservatives. You’ve certainly never bothered to condemn other fireman hating conservatives, such as this Burns character. Even if you’re not a fireman hater, your support for president Bush, and the general behavior of conservatives these last couple years leads me to the inescapable certainty that you’re at least SOFT ON FIREMAN HATERS.
Hell, drop the question. You are either a fireman hater, or soft on fireman haters. Having thus justified my own liberal prejudices, there’s really no point in hearing what you have to say on the matter, is there?
-Damned fireman haters!
That was pretty fucking STUPID wasn’t it?