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
[QUOTE=John Mace]
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.
[/QUOTE]
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?”
[QUOTE=Bricker]
I was Pitting her only for her actions… and I was ALSO taking swipe at the people here who would forgive or minimize it because of its political tenor.
[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
I’d still like to see Bricker’s cites as offered in this post;
[QUOTE=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?
[/QUOTE]
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.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Squink]
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.
[/QUOTE]
Whoa – what’s Clothahump doing in that group? :dubious:
[QUOTE=John Mace]
But did you agree with me before you disagreed with me? 
[/quote]
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.
[QUOTE=EddyTeddyFreddy]
Whoa – what’s Clothahump doing in that group? :dubious:
[/QUOTE]
Clothy’s obviously a deep cover, toddler hating liberal plant; else the exception that proves the rule.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
the second of the two points I was making: that there were people here on the boards that would give her a pass on what she was doing BECAUSE she was anti-Bush.
[/QUOTE]
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
[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
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.
[/QUOTE]
How many do you want?
[QUOTE=mhendo]
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.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Mtgman]
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
[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
How many do you want?
[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
How many do you want?
[/QUOTE]
“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;
[QUOTE=Bricker]
Wow.
Apparently she does get a pass here. No harm done, eh?
In my view, what she’s done is cruel. It’s not monstrous, it’s not the epitome of evil, but it is cruel. I don’t see any value in comparing it to starting a war, holding prisoners in Gitmo, abusing them, or any of the other sins attributed to Bush. I am criticizing her conduct here. She wasn’t as cruel as Jeffrey Dahmer, either; I see no reason to give her a complete pass just because Dahmer did worse thibgs than she did.
Now, it may be that getting kids to cry on movie sets use similar tactics. I don’t know – if they do, I think that’s just as cruel.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Haborwolf]
I haven’t seen that anyone has said that her making babies cry in order to protest Bush was a good thing to do. Maybe I missed it in all of the debate as to whether or not she was making a political statement.
Could you be so kind as to point out who said that making babies cry to protest Bush was a good thing?
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=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?
[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
How many do you want?
[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
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.
[/QUOTE]
Jeeze, are you for real?
[QUOTE=mhendo]
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.
[/quote]
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.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
Jeeze, are you for real?
[/QUOTE]
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;
[QUOTE=GIGObuster]
…Making kids cry only to get pictures is bad regardless of political leanings…
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=RickJay]
Frankly, I find the concept just plain weird irrespective of the rationale.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=John Mace]
The women did a series of pictures in which she made toddlers cry in order to make an “artistic” political statement. Bricker pitted her. BFD-- he was right.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=What Exit?]
[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
Aside from that, I think it takes a pretty mean person to make babies cry on purpose, just to create art.
[/QUOTE]
Well, that last sentence is easy to agree with.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Rufus Xavier]
Personally, it bothers me that someone would intentionally make little kids cry, regardless of the reason.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Revtim]
FWIW, I don’t like the idea of making the kids cry for any pic, anti-Bush or not.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Guinastasia]
I think the idea of making kids cry on purpose for photos is pretty damned sickening.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Skald the Rhymer]
That said, WHAT KIND OF SICK MONSTER INTENTIONALLY MAKES A CHILD CRY, OR ALLOWS SOMEONE TO MAKE HIS/HER CHILD CRY, JUST FOR A PHOTOGRAPH?
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
And, of course, she’s an ass for making kids cry when (by her own admission) some cried anyway.
[/QUOTE]
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;
[QUOTE=Bricker]
Wow.
Apparently she does get a pass here. No harm done, eh?
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Bricker]
By “a pass” I meant the numerous people who feel it was not a particularly bad thing; that it was no big deal.
[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
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 …
I have no proof, and no evidence except the general behavior on this board.
[/QUOTE]
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?