Does Saddam Capture = Bush Re-election?

bgirl · Post by **bgirl** » Tue Jan 06, 2004 7:25 pm

[quote="diane o'thirst"]

Hey, bgirl — my ancestors penned the Constitution and palled around with Jefferson, Ben Franklin and George Washington on a daily basis. Here's your chance to really cut loose and tear into the equivalent of American royalty and my ears aren't even smoking yet. They're going to come and take away your Radical Left union card unless you do better, so give it your best shot.

/quote] See there they go again,trying to put people(me) in their nice little catagories(and calling up the support of your ancestors as ,what ,bait?).Really, the radical left union card bit.Try human being . And then start from there.As for my last post,I definitely went too far...in regards to the comments towards me,and I apologize for that. That post had no place in a thread titled "does saddam capture=bush re-election."Which reminds me of something I'd like to remind people as they contemplate this thread.Coaltition of the willing and unwilling,in the war against terror. The willing:Afghanistan,(that's right),Albania,Australia(70% of citizens against going into the war)Azerbaijan(doesn't the US have oil interests there?),Bulgaria,Colombia,the Czech Republic,Denmark,El Salvador,Eritrea(?),Estonia,Eithopia(nice),Georgia,Hungary,Italy(69% of citizens opposed to the war),,Japan(?),South Korea,Latvia,Lithuania,Macedonia,the Netherlands,Nicaragua,Philippines(should be looking in their own back yard),Poland,Palau and other army-less members include Iceland,Costa Rica,the Marshall islands,the Salomon islands and Micronesia,Morocco didn't have an army,but they did offer to send 2,000 monkeys to detonate land mines in Iraq, back to,Romania,Slovakia,Spain(13% favored a war ,but only with U.N. support),Turkey(95% opposed war), U.K.,Uzbekistan. The coalititon of the unwilling:Algeria,Argentina,Austria, Belgium,Brazil,Canada,Chile,China,Cuba,Egypt,Finland,France,Germany, Greece,India,Indonesia,Iran,Ireland,Israel,Jordon,Mexico,New Zealand,Nigeria,Norway,Pakistan,Russia,South Africa,Sweden,Switzerland,Syria,Thailand,United Arab Emirates,Venezuela,Vietnam,Yemen,Zambia,Zimbabwe,and 103 other countries.

diane o'thirst · Post by **diane o'thirst** » Tue Jan 06, 2004 9:48 pm

Wow, look at that! "Categorization," the old stand-by! You're a classic, bgirl!

And for the record, I didn't say anything to you that you didn't say to a bunch of other people on this board. So what's say we both of us dispense with the name-calling and the nose-rubbing and let it go? You've never met me, so you don't have a judgemental leg to stand on. People aren't as ignorant as you think and that goes quadruple for Burners.

And stop asking for spelling corrections, if you can take the time to look up and spool out all those country names and statistics (the third species of lie according to Samuel Clemens) you can spend a few extra minutes to check your spelling.

aforceforgood · Post by **aforceforgood** » Tue Jan 06, 2004 10:40 pm

Forget the spelling, that's less irritating than having to scroll back and forth to read this, BGIRL PLEASE HIT EDIT AND PUT SOME GODDAMNED SPACES IN YOUR POST PLEASE!

Thank you.

Tancorix · Post by **Tancorix** » Tue Jan 06, 2004 11:45 pm

Bgirl, could you go back and "clean up" the spacing on the post? AFFG was a little harsh but he's spot on with his assessment. That post is tough to read, and I ended up skipping past it. I'd like to read everyone's posts including yours (and especially in spirited debates like this one)...if it's not asking too much could you go back and edit some spaces in there and just clean it up some? Thanks.

aforceforgood · Post by **aforceforgood** » Wed Jan 07, 2004 2:23 am

theeeeeeeenkyewsoveddymuch.

joel the ornery · Post by **joel the ornery** » Wed Jan 07, 2004 3:24 am

bgirl wrote:I think not.

It has become all too apparent.

Chimp · Post by **Chimp** » Wed Jan 07, 2004 6:49 am

Let me get this straight - Bgirl, you edited that post twice? Outstanding, I think its great, a true literary maverick!!!

bgirl · Post by **bgirl** » Wed Jan 07, 2004 7:03 am

That's right Chimp......as always,you can count on people to notice and pick away at the tiny little unimportant details in life........... and in this post.Here are some interesting links for anyone here that is actually interested in this thread,...not just circling around like a vulture waiting for a bitch fight to break-out;rightweb.irc-online.org,www.americaspolicy.org,www.fpif.org, www.presentdanger.org,www.selfdetermine.org.

Patience · Post by **Patience** » Wed Jan 07, 2004 8:53 am

diane o'thirst wrote:Oh, boy, name-calling! "Bigoted!" "Empire!" "Valid reasons to hate us!" "Oil and Power!" And a bunch of passages in all-caps, yet (but you forgot to put in the bold HTML tags). You guys sure hit all the bases, didn't you? I'm surprised you didn't call me a Bushie while you were at it. You ought to audition for the Dioxine list, that'll look impressive on your resumés.

As I assume I'm one of "you guys," I'll ask: Do you have any actual response to what I said, or just sarcasm?

And Patience: I meant Islamists, not Muslims. There's a big difference and I'm surprised you haven't taken it on board yet.

Thank you for the clarification. I was not aware of the difference. Such a possibility is why I assumed I had misunderstood your post, which I said seemed bigoted--I thought your eggagerated scenario (bombing Pagans, etc.) was a generalization about Muslims, not Islamists. My apologies.

Chimp · Post by **Chimp** » Wed Jan 07, 2004 8:54 am

Well, it is kinda hard to read to be fair bgirl, I get the feeling you have rubbed some of these cats up the wrong way here (always an excellent policy) though I haven't read the other posts. Hubert Selby Jr, another literary maverick, employed hardly any punctuation in Last Exit To Brooklyn but that on the other hand is VERY readable. Draw your own conclusions.

bgirl · Post by **bgirl** » Wed Jan 07, 2004 10:40 am

Hiya Chimp,I agree that the post in question seems to be a problem. Read the other posts,to be fair.And yes ,you are right, I have rubbed up against some cats,and a monkey or two, the wrong way.

stuart · Post by **stuart** » Wed Jan 07, 2004 10:52 am

a stylistic critique is as fallacious as an ad hominem attack. Not less filling and doesn't taste great.

KellY · Post by **KellY** » Wed Jan 07, 2004 2:11 pm

Personally, I hate the term "Islamists" -a recent invention of the western world...don't know who started it, but it sounds to me like it is just dripping with prejudice. I mean if you just look at the word "Islamist" it seems to mean "someone who follows Islam", another (clumsy, westernized) way of saying Muslim -thus Patience's confusion. I think using the term just spreads anti-Muslim prejudice among the not-terribly-well-informed American masses. The correct way to refer to these types is something like: "Fundamentalist Muslim Extremists" -very clearly separating them from the majority of Muslims. Maybe the media thinks that's too many big words for the public to digest, maybe they don't want people to think about how much Muslim Extremists have in common with Christian Extremists in our own country. Personally I find them much more frightening. Here's a very recent example of why:

http://archive.salon.com/opinion/letter ... my_of_god/

Agnostic Jihad now.

diane o'thirst · Post by **diane o'thirst** » Wed Jan 07, 2004 7:16 pm

Have you ever listened to the way people talk? They don't go around talking like dictionaries, newspapers and lawyers: they could say "Radical Christian Fundamentalists," but instead they say "Bible-thumpers," "Fundies" and "Jesoids." Lately I've heard a phrase in reference to the Puritans who came here from England creeping into modern street lexicon: they're being referred to as "the American Taliban." England kicked 'em out for a reason.

While I was growing up, if you wanted to razz someone overly strict or disapproving and viciously so, you called them a "Nazi." The term is still bandied around today, when we want to describe someone viciously repressive and aggressively mean we call them "[XYZ]-Nazis." I'm half German. Does that offend me? Hell No! I use it myself.

Yes, "Islamist" is a religious-ideological slur. Yes, it's politically incorrect. Just like Hitler & Company fully deserve to be reduced to a perjorative, Bin Laden and Al Qaeda richly deserve to be referred to as charlatans. They are. They do not deserve to be even remotely connected with Muslims — and I wouldn't. I don't call people who plan to bomb Mohammed's tomb in Mecca, just because some non-Muslims happened to take a picture of it, "Muslims."

You're a Burner. I would think you'd revel in the politically incorrect: political correctness will go down in history as a very pernicious type of repression.

stuart · Post by **stuart** » Thu Jan 08, 2004 11:30 am

I think political correctness may go down in history as a just ideal that got out of hand in many contexts. I also think the cleverly, think tank crafted, anti-intellectual backlash agianst it may go down in history as a fabulously executed missdirection based tenously on 1st amendment prinicipals by folks who still feel all snugly about their bigotry.

stuart · Post by **stuart** » Thu Jan 08, 2004 11:33 am

and the ideals of PC speach, as a form of thought control, aint got nothin on this whole 'with us or against us' 'back the president or you are no patriot' nonsense.

KellY · Post by **KellY** » Thu Jan 08, 2004 2:33 pm

First of all Diane, read my post again. I didn't object to "Islamist" because it's derogatory, but because it's it's such a general sounding term it just becomes inaccurrate. And, by the way, it's used by the media to refer to ALL fundamentalist Muslims, not just Al Queda -for example, the Shiite clerics who agitate against the U.S. occupation of Iraq, a very different thing than the Sunni Al Queda.

Second of all:

diane o'thirst wrote: You're a Burner. I would think you'd revel in the politically incorrect: political correctness will go down in history as a very pernicious type of repression.

What the hell? I'm a Burner, so I should think like you?! Talk about thought police! Fuck you and the horse you rode in on. And for the record I'm in complete agreement with Stuart. Maybe you equate "politically incorrect" with free-thinking, and free-thinking with Burners, but the "in's" have had the upper hand for quite awhile now. Remember Bill Maher? He got canned for crossing over the REAL line, saying that it takes more bravery to be in a suicide attack than it is to launch a remote control missle from a thousand miles away. But that was saying something positive about the Bad Guys, so that couldn't be allowed.

I remember in 1991, I was working as a canvasser for an environmental group (it sucked, but I was desperate for money). As you might imagine, we were all a bunch of serious lefties. I first heard the term "politically correct" there. It was a joke, but a partly serious one: it meant being mindful of the consequences of your actions and words - taking really long showers in the middle of a drought was "politically incorrect". As I said, mostly a joke. Yes, there were people who took it too seriously, but outside of academic circles in Berkeley, Santa Cruz and New York, and maybe a few other small liberal arts colleges scattered across the country, it just wasn't a big deal. Then suddenly the media got ahold of the term. "Political correctness" was built into this big straw man for the right wing to knock down -they weren't being racist, sexist or homophobic, they were "free thinkers". Simply trying to be respectful became this giant bugaboo.

There was an incident at Stanford: some frat boys vandalized a gay-pride type statue that had three couples holding hands -two men, two women, and one of each. The culprits defended themselves by saying they were acting out against "political correctness". Rush Limbaugh just got fired this year from ESPN for making racist remarks; he retreated to his radio show saying he was a victim of the politically correct liberal media (yeah, ESPN is such a bastion of progressive politics).

So you know what? I'm an independent thinker who realizes that this is a complex world and tries to be respectful, honest, and accurate in what I say. Sorry if you have a problem with that.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Thu Jan 08, 2004 7:05 pm

~swoon~ for Kelly.

Political correctness" was built into this big straw man for the right wing to knock down -they weren't being racist, sexist or homophobic, they were "free thinkers".

You raised a good point there. The right succeeded in painting the left as censorers for speaking the way they wished. Yeah, some schools over-reacted in their enthusiasm and did censor folks (I think it was Antioch that disciplined a kid for calling someone a water buffalo.)

But the right brought it way past that to where just trying to be "respectful, honest, and accurate" in what you say was seen as an effort to censor others. What a fucked-up victory for a reactionary Big Brother.

Owl · Post by **Owl** » Thu Jan 08, 2004 10:19 pm

Personally, I agree with Kelly and abeerinthemorning on this one, whats known as "Political Correctness" to some may simply be asshole-ish to the rest of the world, I mean really don't know anyone could think that racism or sexism has any place in politics whatsoever, exept in defending against it. Limbaugh, those stanford dickheads, there all just trying to sound smart while the rest of the world the world just sits there thinking "What are these retards talking about?"

diane o'thirst · Post by **diane o'thirst** » Thu Jan 08, 2004 11:28 pm

KellY wrote:Fuck you and the horse you rode in on.

And this is supposed to make me respect your opinion, see the light and come round to your way of thinking — how? Or are you just stooping to hurling personal insults?

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were speaking rhetorically. At least I hope you were. In either case, apologizing would be a wise move on your part.

aforceforgood · Post by **aforceforgood** » Fri Jan 09, 2004 3:45 am

KellY wrote:Then suddenly the media got ahold of the term. "Political correctness" was built into this big straw man for the right wing to knock down ...

Wow, I'm a member of the media and the right wing too because I find the "politically correct" mental gyrations and gymnastics of people trying to convince themselves they're morally superior to their parents funny?

Cool! Where do I get my ID card so I can get into the underground base when the planet-killing asteroid hits?

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Fri Jan 09, 2004 5:58 am

aforceforgood wrote:[...people trying to convince themselves they're morally superior to their parents...

Trying to distinguish, in a conversation about war and terrorism, between followers of a particular form of spirituality and followers of terrorism-endorsing hate-mongers has nothing to do with my parents.

Where did you get that aforceforgood?

aforceforgood · Post by **aforceforgood** » Fri Jan 09, 2004 1:11 pm

Hey, sometimes comedy is just comedy. Don't try and analyze it too deeply amigo.

Just doing my part to help someone out there to laugh or smile or at least not cry when they look around at this crazy world we live on...

KellY · Post by **KellY** » Fri Jan 09, 2004 2:57 pm

Gee, Force, smug, patronizing remarks belittling my point of view always put such a big smile on my face, thank you so much...you, Joel, Rush Limbaugh and David Brooks (see http://salon.com/opinion/conason/2004/0 ... index.html ), just filling the world with laughter, you are...

Oh and Diane,

diane o'thirst wrote: apologizing would be a wise move on your part.

That would sound like a threat if we were speaking face to face...In any case, yes I was pissed off at your comments at vis-a-vis the point of view Burners should "revel in"; Do you realize the irony of calling political correctness (which didn't have anything to do with my original post) "a very pernicious type of repression" while telling me what a Burner should think?

Oh, and by the way, your post was almost a textbook example of of the ignorant backlash against "political correctness". I said that "Islamist" is such a vague-sounding term that it becomes misleading, and you accused me of being "politically correct" and insisting we need to be polite to Al Queda.

So no, I don't particularly feel the need to apologize. It was nothing personal though -just a momentary flare up.

Read the tag line.

diane o'thirst · Post by **diane o'thirst** » Fri Jan 09, 2004 3:25 pm

KellY wrote:So no, I don't particularly feel the need to apologize. It was nothing personal though -just a momentary flare up.Read the tag line.

Suit yourself, just don't expect me or anyone else to respect you.

In the meantime, go grow some cucumbers.

Owl · Post by **Owl** » Fri Jan 09, 2004 6:20 pm

Really, I dont see where and argument would have any place on a BM site, especially one that has anything to do with Political Correctness diane, you should not tell people how they're supposed to think especially if they are burners, that tends to lead to arguments like these, kelly, although you make an eccelent point, insulting diane is not really a way to get her to knock it off, so will you please both either apologize or just stop talking to each other...

____________________

*sigh* i hate being a mediator

Badger · Post by **Badger** » Fri Jan 09, 2004 6:42 pm

Know that even the act of suggesting the above to another here is grounds for a slow roasting.

Don't like what Diane said? That's the shits kiddo. Engage or pass on but think twice about suggesting to anyone here that we correct ourselves for a particular point of view just because you or anyone else here finds it unpaletable. This isn't all alt.cuddle.

bgirl · Post by **bgirl** » Fri Jan 09, 2004 7:03 pm

Bitchin',bitchin'and some more bitchin'.If ya can't take the heat stay outta the kitchen.

aforceforgood · Post by **aforceforgood** » Fri Jan 09, 2004 7:58 pm

KellY wrote:Gee, Force, smug, patronizing remarks belittling my point of view always put such a big smile on my face, thank you so much...you, Joel, Rush Limbaugh and David Brooks (see http://salon.com/opinion/conason/2004/0 ... index.html ), just filling the world with laughter, you are...

I'm sorry you've decided to have a defensive reaction to my post- it's my opinion that political correctness is way out of control, to the point where we euphemise everything possible, calling people "challenged" and "differently abled" and all that nonsense. A climate where people are made to feel uncomfortable is not one in which truth can be discussed openly.

I'm all for you trying to respect others and not call them racial epithets and all that, but if you're honest, you'd have to agree with me there are some cases where political correctness is taken too far. And these are the instances I will continue to make fun of. If you're not guilty of that, then you have no reason to feel attacked.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Fri Jan 09, 2004 9:43 pm

Badger wrote:This isn't all alt.cuddle.

Uh, where is alt.cuddle?

Does Saddam Capture = Bush Re-election?

Re: I'd give it a 6.5

Um...