No, you’re right. Looking deeper into the site, it apparently is as you describe. I would say that its creators would have been better off not putting the crackpot stuff “above the fold” before the disclaimer could be seen. Nevertheless, I stand corrected.
Scylla --how is my post (which you “rebutted” in post #51–no, I am not going to wade thru it and answer you) not supported by facts?
My claiming that I question the intelligence of Reps these days is a fact. I do indeed question it. Let me be more specific for you–I am now questioning YOUR intelligence.
Scylla said, “This is politics Mhendo. You seem to have some extraordinary and high standards that you apply to the Republican party. I’m sorry to disapoint you that they don’t live up to them.”
Wow. This speaks volumes to me-so this story is all spin, eh? Not outright, dleiberate lies–but tweaking and hedging and non-answers that all pols do? And even it IS true, it’s ok, because it was not a high profile event? What kind of reasoning is this?
Wow. I stand by my above statement re: intelligence. But now it’s not so much questioning as amazement. It obviously means a great deal to you to not have your party of choice wrong or misguided or even corrupt and manipulative in any way. So, despite mounting evidence to the contrary, you believe the Reps to be above reproach, using that old chestnut that never helped a teenager yet–the ole, “but everyone does it, so it’s ok” argument?
What would it take for you to frown upon the actions of these elected officials? Or are you, like so many other Reps, giving them a free ride because they lowered your taxes by a few hundred bucks? Personal (small) gain at the cost of increasing world animosity towards us(aka jingoism), preventing (nay, encouraging) more damage to the enviroment, the loss of respect for the separation of church and state, the overburdening of future generations, the curtailment of the press–is this enough for you? If this is true–I can only shake my head.
That’s incredible. It is incredibly sad.
Aye. I was angling more for the content of the piece than the philosophy of the website. My use of Heretics.co.uk was not advocative, merely convenient. Even though I find their assertions ridiculous; I always find alternate philosophies and opinions interesting.
Well, if you are going to equate Cox’s comments to the tsunami in terms of significance why mince words? I say Godwinize and head straight for the Nazi argument.
Bottom line, Cox’s comments are insignificant.
I suppose that it is possible that the complete and total support of the media enjoyed by the Repbulican party resulted in a hush up of the incident.
Somehow, I suspect you are not going to seriously pursue this possibility.
Somebody exagerrated in front of Ann Coulter? Somebody told a lie that supported Republicans in her presence? I don’t believe it. Surely there will be hell to pay when she gets a hold of this in her next column.
I am not really shocked and dismayed to learn that someone uttered a flattering untruth while introducing a bigwig at an event.
I mean “wow,” who would expect such a thing?
Except that it was on their website, in their contest, and had “sponsored by Moveon.org” as the final credit. Sorry, but if you put something up on your site like that, it becomes yours and you become responsible for it.
Ha-HA! You are right. Not only are you right, but you are serving my point. By removing it they looked like chumps. It was also an admission of guilt that got them more abuse. The smart thing to do would have been to leave it there and say “tough shit, that’s the opinion of the guy who made it. We’re holding a contest here, not censoring opinion. We support free speech.”
What they did though is an admission of responsibility for the content of the entries.
Why should some Republican piss on Cox, just because some offended Democrats want them, too. Cox is responsible for his own words. If someone needs to apologize or retract, it’s Cox, not anybody else.
True, but it’s bad form to complain about the quality of the orchestras performance while the Titanic sank.
Hate is hate. If he means what he said, the Democrats have elected an admitted fool and monster to lead them.
Sheesh. It’s a two party system. Bush won by 51%. Your point is taken. My 50% comment is just an off the cuff comment meant to show Dean was claiming a hatred of a large portion of the country. It was not offered as an unimpeachable statistic.
God forbid.
While I agree that Dean is essentially inconsequential, I don’t think you can ascribe hate as a cornerstone of republicanism.
I’ll be totally honest with you on this subject. I used to beleive that tolerance and forbearance were the gift of liberalism, it’s great strength. I look back over my life, and recent history and it was liberalism that led in Women’s rights, civil rights, social reform and respect and tolerance for people’s differences.
While conservative philosophy strongly supports these things, with rare exceptions conservatives have not been leaders in this respect. For the most part we’ve been behind the curve. It really has been the failing of Republicans and conservatives, and should be our shame.
And, this is what I believed up until the latter part of '99
At that time, I came to this board. On this board, and in life, I have watched liberalism become rabid and intolerant.
In general I think liberals in this country have become the most intolerant sons of bitches around. They think they are filled with a righteous rage, but I really just think their obnoxious assholes when they display this kind of behavior. At some point it became tolerated. Then it became OK. Now, as Howard Dean has demonstrated, hatred is a credential of liberalism. It’s a “virtue.”
This thread is evidence, too. Look at the vitriol spewed at Republicans in general over a comment that only one man is responsible for.
You want to call Cox a dumby, so be it. Chances are, though I don’t know the man, I’ll agree it was at very least evidence of stupidity, but more likely deliberate mendacity.
You want to use this to attack Republicans in general or to prove that they are the party in general are stupid and mendacious, then my reaction is that proves your failings, not the Pubbies. (I’m using the generic “You” here, Mhendo. Not you personally.)
You frame it like that and you’ve made a good argument. On the other side of the coin, you wave your hand at Dean’s statement and decide to “cut him slack.”
You frame Dean’s comments differently. I might say:
“To have somebody announce a hatred for a half the electorate and everthing they stand for is a serious matter and I would expect any normal person doing it to be denounced by his peers. To have a man seeking the leadership of half the electorate make such a statement and recieve the endorsement of his peers is absolutely inexcusable and beggars beleif.”
The real difference here, my friend is where you and I are respectively deciding to place our slack. When it boils down to it, it’s all just a bunch of rhetorical bullshit, isn’t it?
Sure, but I think that’s a stupid and mean conclusion to draw from Cox’s comments. As such it tells us more about you than Republicans.
Fair enough. Hopefully this question will be better founded.
I didn’t make the world. It is what is. People talk shit all the time. If this is a revelation to you or you think it’s a strict Republican phenemenom than it’s your own pretensions that need attending to.
Well, I am amazing.
I didn’t say it’s ok. I said it doesn’t bother me. I am underwhelmed by Cox’s mendacity. It doesn’t even blip on my radar screen. I cannot even pretend to be dismayed, surprised. I can’t even summon a “tssk tskk.”
Well, a lot more integrity in general would be de riguer before I could tune my offensibility apparatus so fine as to take notice of such a high-pitched and innocuous fart in the veritable bathysphere filled of bean-eaters that is current environment.
You were doing so well, and now you’re being a dimwit. Yeah, yeah, yeah, you think Republicans are evil because you’ve described all these nasty generalizations and taken the simpleton’s route of assigning them to the opposition so you can dismiss them and feel good about yourself. Take that thinking and stick it where the sun don’t shine. Start operating on a level that doesn’t assume your conclusions and villify your opponents and then come back to me…
or don’t, and choose to remain a comfortable flake instead.
No, it is not simply a matter of “rhetorical bullshit” , spread innocently on the garden of credulity. The people attending Mr. Cox’s flights of fantasy are men actually in positions of power, Mr. Cheney participates in decisions that get people dead. Lots of them.
If Mr. Cox was, indeed, saying something that he believed, his audience believed, and Mssrs. Cheney, Hyde and other unindicted coconspirators believe, then men making desperately important positions are ill-informed. I think we can agree this is not a good thing. The other plausible alternative is that some of them know it isn’t true, but are entirely content to keep that discreetly to themselves. Not much better.
Howard Dean is entirely irrelevent to these issues. He most certainly wasn’t there, and he is in no real position of power (outside of his Svengali like grip on the hive mind of the Democratic Party, of course…). He has a considerable laxity when it comes to “rhetorical bullshit”. 'Cause the ain’t getting anybody killed.
Of course, we thank friend Scylla for his unsparing commentary on our many, many faults. We are all well advised to reflect upon his example, the very paragon of calm and reasoned discourse. One weeps that he so kindly and generously disposed is set upon by rabid liberals and publicly savaged.
Cue music: Don’t Cry for Me, Argentina
Republicans blowing smoke up each other’s asses!!! God forbid! Sound the alarm!
You don’t need to qualify that. “Irrelevant” is just fine.
So, you are saying that Democrats are free to say stupid shit because they are irrelevant and powerless, and Republicans aren’t because they are meaningful and potent?
It is the moral, intellectual (and sexual) superiority of Republicans that necessitates a higher standard?
A surprising argument from you.
You’ve seen the Jeff Gannon website too?
The much admired Mr. Cox responds:
He was misquoted, and his source is the very font of all that is fair and balanced: Fox News. You see, he was not talking about WMD in a general way, but the ghastly and evil plan to package nerve agents and bio-weapons in perfume bottles.
So that little twit at Bloomie’s runs up and spritzes you with sarin/ricin, says “Obsession!” and you drop dead.
The link cited goes into much greater detail, and it would appear that Mr. Cox may have a case, in that he was not, in fact, suggesting anything remotely plausible but a bat-shit crazy plot that, apparently, was reported by the aforementioned Fox News as fact. But even there, he is exaggerating, as you can read for yourself at above. Not even FoxNews ever said anything so hysterically fallacious, but with a bit of creative imagination…
Mr. Cox is chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee. I advise panic.
I note, in passing, that friend Scylla is reduced to sophomoric and juvenile mockery. As this is as close to an admission of defeat as he is capable of, I generously accept. In that same spirit of generosity, I accept a premise of his, that Mr. Cox was, indeed, slightly misrepresented. His actual thesis was sheer lunacy, and did not even have the shred of plausibility he was credited with.
I am struck dumb by such eloquence! Heavens!
Calling someone names and attempting to dismiss questions via scathing remarks is a poor technique for true discussion–but I’ll grant you, it is a hallmark of the Republican party.
You need to take a page from your own book and start “operating on a level that doesn’t assume your conclusions and villify your opponents”.
but don’t bother coming back to me–what is that phrase about teaching a pig to dance? Oh, yes, it just wears you out and makes the pig mad.
Lucy:
Seeing as you’ve come forth with evidence to suggest that I was right from the beginning and Cox was misquoted by vindictive and mendacious lying liberal, as usually the case in these matters.(Props by the way, for bringing it out,) you can hardly be claiming victory.
Now, it’s pretty clear that you folks owe Mr. Cox an apology. More so, I think you owe a debt of gratitude to this administration which has protected you from the undeniable threat of Iraqi perfume.
Eleanor:
I have that effect.
You see, that’s just stupid prejudiced bullshit, and you’re quite the hypocrite to talk about namecalling when your initial contribution was to insult the intelligence of Republicans everywhere based on a mendacious misquotation.
It don’t reflect on Democrats in general but your views make you a dope.
I haven’t. You’ve vilified and ridiculed yourself with your own statements. I didn’t do it.
You say that now but once you see me do the Lambada you’ll melt.
The truth is more repulsive than the (very slight) misrepresentation. You want us to apologize for calling a child molestor a jay-walker? Forget it.
If Mr. Cox actually believes the drivel he laid out, he hasn’t got the good sense God gave a goose. If he doesn’t believe it…and given his position and access to facts, its hard to see how he could be so ill-informed…then he has no claim to my respect, nor yours, for that matter.
Tell you what: I’ll consider apologizing for my vindictive and harsh analysis of Mr. Cox the day after you apologize for calling Kerry a traitor. When it comes to wildly exaggerated accusations, you have no standing to criticize. None whatsoever.
Warn us first, that we might have time to gouge out our eyes.
Bullshit, boyo. My opinion was formed carefully from research including two authorized biographies of Kerry, his own words and testimony, and the Swiftvets book. My opinion is careful and informed.
You just clicked on a half-assed link and put your foot in your mouth.
The Lambada was not “The Forbidden Dance” until I did it.
And wrong. We went all over that, as I pointed out to you any number of inconsistencies in your sources and several outright lies. Your opinion places you directly in the midst of some of the most extremely rabid right wingers currently extant. The company you keep, and all that. If the Freepers are your kind of people, that’s hunky-dory by me. But your claims of fairness and balance impress only yourself. In case you hadn’t noticed. Then again, perhaps that’s the whole point.
Not a bit of it. The lies Mr. Cox told were even more extreme and ludicrous that the lies attributed to him. Saddam plotting to poison the American public with lethal perfume bottles? You couldn’t sell that plot to anyone with enough good sense to come in out of a shitstorm. If his remarks were reported with complete accuracy, he looks either an idiot or a propagandist of the lowest order.
You keep trying to raise the reporting of his remarks to be the substantive issue, if you can’t distract us into a conversation about Mr. Dean’s relative mental health. Nobody fell for it, but you’re welcome to keep trying.
So let me get this straight.
-
You post a partisan liberal link which that misquotes a congressman in order to attack him
-
You ridicule me for my healthy skepticism on the accuracy
-
You and several others indict the man, the administration and republicans in gerneral, saying that we distort reality
-
It turns out that I’m right and he was maliciously misquoted and his words distorted to better ridicule him
-
This vindicates you in your thesis that Republicans distort reality?
Do I need to point out to you that the people doing the lying and distorting of reality here were not Republicans? You were so pissed off at Cox when you thought he told a factual untruth. Somehow it doesn’t bother you that you’ve been duped into falsely maligning the man, and encouraged others to do so here?
Not only are you being hypocritical, to say you are distorting reality would be an understatement. You appear to be making up your own as you go along.
Anyway, this horse is dead.
I must certainly acknowledge again that it was rather decent of you to break the news on the falsehood of the story.
I’ll leave the final words with you, put on my dancing shoe, and bid you a fond adieu.
Time out time!
Scylla…you go to that corner.
elucidator…you go to that one over there.
It don’t matter. The US is going down the tubes. Why fight about it?
Just enjoy the time we have left.
Put on some mellow jams…mix a few drinks.
Might I suggest some J Mark Bailey?
Why would I dance with someone who shows themself to be petty and domineering?
Sweetie–my dance card is full.
But you’re cute when you’re righteous.
elucidator, mon ami I had some fear that the sarcasm of your follow up post pertaining to Cox’s “clarifying” remarks would be lost on fiend Scylla, and it looks as if I was right. How predictably sad.
There may be hope. Perhaps he is attempting to wriggle out of an embarrassing spot with a double reverse whoosh.