There’s a lot of stuff that I find disgusting in this article but when he uses the WTC horror as an excuse to attack people in wheelchairs (paragraph 4) I really can’t understand it. I know that the conservatives will band behind him for flying in the face of “political correctness” like they banded together to attack Evan Gahr: ( http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2001/05/25/105.html ) but I still have to ask- are there no depths to which you will not sink? Have you no shame?
This guy belongs in The National Review, alongside Ann Coulter: http://www.nationalreview.com/coulter/coulter091301.shtml.
Let’s hear your defense, Wildest Bill and the rest!
JDM
You know that, huh? Do you “know” the the Bob Dole mentioned in the article as the sponsor of the Americans with Disabilities Act is the very same Bob Dole that ran for President of the United States as a Republican? It boggles the mind!
However, in the last week I’ve seen moronic pieces of drivel similar to this from just about every corner of the political spectrum. Plenty right on this board, in fact. Conservatives haven’t cornered a market on assinine behavior.
I tell you what, JDM; if you’ll stop going off about conservatives being ‘evil’ because you found one offensive article in a right-wing British magazine, I won’t bother to talk about how liberals are ‘evil’ because of articles I’ve seen regarding how the 5000 who died deserved to because the U.S. foreswore Kyoto and/or drive SUVS and/or supported Israel.
In case anyone’s curious, this is the passage that JDM apparently considers “to attack people in wheelchairs.”
The American Spectator does not reflect well on conservatism, IMO; its editorial and intellectual standards are low, especially compared to National Review. The above, however, is far from the most egregious example. Judging conservatives by the contents of The American Spectator is like judging liberals by the editorials of Molly Ivins.
More amazingly, that Bob Dole is HIMSELF disabled! Yet, other conservatives still let him run for president instead of beating him to death with sticks! I tell you, it boggles the mind.
Danimal, that wasn’t even the American Spectator. It was a British magazine.
ruadh- just off the top of my head, Derrick Z. Jackson of the Boston Globe states today: “God cannot be all that happy with a nation that is 5 percent of the world’s population, produces a quarter of Earth’s carbon dioxide emissions, yet walks out of global warming talks.”
To that, John, I would add that the Indiana Daily Student, the student newspaper of Indiana University, has run a number of letters implying that the U.S. got what it deserved in last week’s attacks.
Ruadh: The location of the IDS is http://www.idsnews.com. I am not posting a link because none of the letters in today’s edition contained such a suggestion, and the IDS apparently only places letters of the day in the site. At least, a cursory inspection of the site did not uncover yesterday’s letters, one of which, indeed, blamed the U.S. totally for the attack.
My apologies, ruadh; I had assumed that if people were offended by Falwell and Robertson saying that God let the terrorist strike happen because we accept homosexuality, they’d be equally offended by someone saying that God let the terrorist strike happen because we drive SUVs.
I guess I’m reading that article differently than you are, John. The preceding paragraph simply asks whether God “bless[es] our way of life”. There is no suggestion that God used the attacks as punishment, a la Robertson and Falwell.
pldennison, no, sorry, that doesn’t work either. Saying we shouldn’t be surprised that people are pissed off at the US is not the same thing as saying 5000 innocent people (many of whom were not Americans) deserved to die. I can’t believe intelligent posters are making this false equation.
