RE: The Double Standard rears it's head

RE: The Double Standard rears it's head (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

FirmhandKY -> RE: The Double Standard rears it's head (3/7/2007 9:30:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Actually you seem to misunderstand. The link I provided is to wikiquote not wikipedia. Wikiquote is simply a collection of quotations by or attributed to people. You are correct. I mistakenly wrote "pedia", but all the other comments are still valid. quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen I told you that previously. When he said it doesn't change anything. Sherman - and other atheists - have had 20 years to get a second source. They haven't. quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen You are kidding right? Atheists never get positive coverage in the main stream press. Think how no one in the media called any of the various blatherers after 9/11 with there "no atheists in foxholes" crap. Poor little put upon atheists! How about all the main stream press blather about the "religious right" and "religious fundies" and - gasp - Christo-terrorists! Back up and look at the facts. Any decent reporter will tell you that you should have at least two sources. Especially for something controversial. Why? To prevent BS like this. quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: FirmKY Another problem is that the link you give ... is a blind link. The site (http://www.positiveatheism.org) doesn't have a home page. At least not when I tried it several times. The site is registered to Positive Atheism Magazine in Portland OR. I hope that's not your name the whois provides as the registering individual (even though it's public information, I'll not provide it here). So ... how'd you get a blind link to an article on a defunct site that starts out with exactly the stuff you are trying to peddle? It's the link provided as source on the wikiquote page. Pretty obvious I thought. Want to retract a few accusations now? Retract the fact that it's a blind link to a dead site, and apparently the sole reason for it's existence is to give a "source" so that the "quote" can be used in a Wiki? No. It's true. Except that the Wiki no longer has the quotes. I deleted them, and gave my reasoning in the discussion page. Wonder how long it'll take for someone to put it back in? quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: FirmKY Truthfully, sounds like a smear job, and only people who are blinded in the atheistic hatred for Bush give it any creditability. Of course, my opinion is subject to change, if you can actually provide anything at least approaching an actual reliable source. How about the various letters from White House counsel not denying the statement was made? If Bush had said "I didn't say that" don't you think his dirty tricks outfit would have hammered the atheists as an attempt to make the dems and liberals look bad? ... Actually I have strong doubts that Bush would have had his White House Counsel, not an assistant but the actual counsel, send out the letter if he didn't say it and have a suspicion that a recording of him saying it existed. Note how the counsel makes the effort to say that the POTUS would not interfere with the legal rights of atheists. Now if the POTUS had not less than a year earlier declared that he didn't view atheists as citizens why make that statement. Yes, a counter argument that this was a shut up and go away letter meant to end the controversy is possible. However if that was the case why not something more along the lines of a psuedo apology without admiting anything? or with a denial thrown in? As it stands I don't buy the argument. Yeah ... I get it ... and if he had denied it and given you a "pseudo" apology, you would be saying that he must have said it ... otherwise why the pseudo apology and denial? False reasoning. Perhaps even .... (back to on topic) ... a double standard? What you are saying is absence of proof proves he said it. How about his attorney understood that it is people like you, who gasp at straws in order to try to further their agenda will twist and justify anything at all? So, just reassure them that you have no plans except to honor the law? Which is all he did. And which you take as some sort of admission. Just as you would take any comment as an admission. From my earlier post: So ... let me sum it up .... no other media outlet reported the story. There is no video or audio tapes of the event, no other reporter will verify the story (despite there being a lot of high powered reporters), and three other major stories came out of the event, so it should have been a memorable time. But nobody but the lonely crusading reporter from the American Atheist Magazine heard the slur on atheists. [pause] How convenient. FirmKY

FirmhandKY -> RE: The Double Standard rears it's head (3/7/2007 9:48:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: Seriously, though dc, you are trying to take it from the intellectual to the personal. When you've been gay-bashed, it's impossible not to take the word faggot personally. quote: She could have used any other term, it would have still been humorous. Would it have been funny with the word nigger? You are just trying to be incendary, dc. The point of the thread is whether or not there is a double standard in what someone can say, depending on their political views. I think the answer is yes. Doesn't mean that it's ok, or right to use inflammatory language, regardless of your political beliefs. Doesn't mean that "humor" can't be hurtful. It can be. Unfortunately, it seems like that is the very basis of humor. I'm sorry that you've been hurt by Coulter's use of the word "faggot", and I don't condone her use of it. But making others apologize - people who didn't use the term - isn't something that I condone either. FirmKY

domiguy -> RE: The Double Standard rears it's head (3/7/2007 10:26:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WyrdRich Yep. You're right Stef, it was in public domain. Kerry didn't out her. He was just the guy from the party of tolerance and diversity who brought up her orientation for the national media to play with. My bad. Since sexual orientation is one of the "hot" topics that decisively fall regarding ones political affiliations... gay/left, straight/right ...The point was germane as to the discrimination towards gays that Republicans view as protecting our most sacred of all possible endeavours ...family values,marriage....etc. So when The Pres. Bush is pushing for banning gay marriage then you could turn to the V.P. and ask "what do you think?" Making it a relevant argument to how you can "back" a President who's ideas on homosexuality would appear to be in conflict with the dynamics of your own family.(As much as I dislike Rove you've got to hand it to the Republicans for focussing on a topic such as gay marriage....Making the Dems "defend" it...and thereby possibly winning on an election. If you've noticed, since then there has been little talk about a Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage...Cause they never really cared in the first place.....Brilliant!) If a Dem. candidate had a child who worked for instance at a Pro-life facility it would be made common knowledge....Anything that can be used to show a hypocrisy (of an adult child) is probably fair game outside of personal problems...For instance "One of your kids died/went to rehab from a drug overdose...You are a horrible parent"...lol...But you never know!..Don't think this would go over to well.. But you are a sharp guy and I imagine you new this the whole time. Nothing like playing the devil's advocate to work up an appetite.

domiguy -> RE: The Double Standard rears it's head (3/7/2007 11:12:55 AM)
I agree entirely with FirmhandKy. It's one thing to chime in with an opinion but when touting "facts" you ought to be able to provide a "relevant" site or possibly two that don't clearly have a political/cause bias.

DomKen -> RE: The Double Standard rears it's head (3/7/2007 12:06:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Actually you seem to misunderstand. The link I provided is to wikiquote not wikipedia. Wikiquote is simply a collection of quotations by or attributed to people. You are correct. I mistakenly wrote "pedia", but all the other comments are still valid. They are? What about this: quote: An article on GWH Bush, as President ... with little or no information about his history, or anything else. Almost the first paragraph is about the so-called "interview" that you are peddling, though. Interesting and telling. Admitting you're wrong when you're wrong is great but then making the claim you made when it obviously isn't correct isn't so great. As to the rest, you seem to live in a very different reality than the rest of us. The RR has an enitre media industry devoted to saying good things about them as well as a significant part of the main stream press quite willing to kiss their ass. If you're unwilling to accept the evidence available I'm fine with that but you slung a lot of accusations that I was somehow making this up. I expect you to either prove that or retract the claim.

FirmhandKY -> RE: The Double Standard rears it's head (3/7/2007 2:42:25 PM)
DomKen, Straining at gnats now, are we? What I find funny is that you took exception to something early in the thread, based on just your general "distaste" of "conservatives". So you took to nit-picking some small area is each of my post where you thought you could get a finger hold on an issue - didn't matter what the issue was, or how tenuous the hold in relation to the thread - in an obvious effort to poke your finger in my eye. Each time you've tried, I've explained and corrected. Doesn't matter. You just continue with the next niggardly little issue and ignore the big gaping holes that I pounded into your orginal thesis. Don't you get embarrassed at this? FirmKY

FirmhandKY -> RE: The Double Standard rears it's head (3/7/2007 2:50:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: domiguy I agree entirely with FirmhandKy. It's one thing to chime in with an opinion but when touting "facts" you ought to be able to provide a "relevant" site or possibly two that don't clearly have a political/cause bias. Thanks, domi, Verification is both an art and a science. There aren't always clear cut rules, and sometimes, based on the circumstances and the issues, a single source may be all that is available. And that's fine. You have to look at other factors as well. But this guy - Sharmen? - is a reporter for goodness sakes. And making claims that are pretty - interesting? He knows he should have a second source, and there was plenty of opportunity for him to get it before now. But he hasn't. Maybe GHW Bush did say it. I can't know. But after 20 years, the original reporter's failure to develop a second verification puts the weight of credibility against him in this issue. FirmKY

domiguy -> RE: The Double Standard rears it's head (3/7/2007 2:57:32 PM)
Firmhand, I agree wholeheartedly...If I'm looking for honest information about Israel it is probably not the best idea to get all of my info from some Palestinian website...lol But you are right it might be only possible to find one source...But then I don't think you can rely on that source as the providing the "sole truth" especially if that source has an agenda or a personal axe to grind.

dcnovice -> RE: The Double Standard rears it's head (3/7/2007 6:05:57 PM)
quote: You are just trying to be incendary, dc. No, I just asked a simple, sincere, and still unanswered question. You were the one who said that Coulter's comments would be "humorous" with "any" other term, and I wondered if that would include the word--nigger--that strikes me as the closest analog to faggot. quote: I don't condone her use of it. Yet you described her comments as "funny as hell." quote: But making others apologize - people who didn't use the term - isn't something that I condone either. I haven't asked anyone to apologize for anything. I simply said that I didn't get why calling someone a faggot was funny.

farglebargle -> RE: The Double Standard rears it's head (3/7/2007 6:19:59 PM)
Ann likes Gays. It's just her act. It plays to the target audience.

dcnovice -> RE: The Double Standard rears it's head (3/7/2007 6:20:42 PM)
quote: But making others apologize - people who didn't use the term - isn't something that I condone either. BTW, has anyone actually demanded an apology from Republicans? If so, who? The leading Republicans seemed to move pretty swiftly and independently to distance themselves from Coulter's comments (and the roomful of conservatives who applauded them).

thompsonx -> RE: The Double Standard rears it's head (3/7/2007 6:48:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WyrdRich The problem Edwards might have now that it has sorta been said (she didn't actually call him anything, did she?) is it will stick. He's always vaguely reminded me of something, and now I know what it is; That creepy guy who just looks way too affluent to be hanging around the restroom of the bus station. It's kinda like when Sinergy mentioned hearing Christopher Walken's voice from Pulp Fiction, every time John McCain speaks. The thought is there now and I can't get it out. WyrdRich: While your profile states you are straight you have requested a homosexual act from me here on the boards. Your avitar does seem to show a rather well to do individual whom most would find strange hanging around a bus station restroom. thompson

thompsonx -> RE: The Double Standard rears it's head (3/7/2007 6:54:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sternhand4 "Sternhand4: I read the link and all I found there was rhetoric and spin no actual refutation of anything that Michael Moore has said. Then Mr. Hitchens cites the bravery of Tod Beamer for fighting the terrorist tooth and nail ...yadda yadda yadda and we now know from the cockpit voice recorder the lets roll drama never happened except on television So it would appear that your cite shows rather the perfidy of your source and not Mr Moore thompson A cockpit voice recorder wouldnt pick up conversations in the passenger cabin. It was heard over the inflight phone system. http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010916phonecallnat3p3.asp It appears that you have a tough time reading as there are several direct refutes in the previous cited article. I tried to use one from a less than right wing source, as slate tends to be. But as you havent seen the film, feel free to just accept the premise. Sternhand4: I thought the story line had Mr. Beamer & co. breaking into the cockpit and crashing the plane into a field in Pa. some where. Since the flight controls and the hijackers were in the cockpit it would stand to reason that the cockpit voice recorder would have picked up these heroics. "Falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" thompson

thompsonx -> RE: The Double Standard rears it's head (3/7/2007 7:03:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WyrdRich I'd still rather go hunting with Dick Cheney than let a Kennedy drive. [:D] quote: ORIGINAL: Sternhand4 Friends describe Cheney as extremely close to her father and fiercely loyal to the family. She takes frequent hunting and fishing trips with him; they recently returned from an excursion to South America Wonder if she still hunts with dad.. In my humble opinion I think Kennedy and Cheny are both assholes. thompson

Sanity -> RE: The Double Standard rears it's head (3/7/2007 7:23:15 PM)
It's pretty easy to find transcripts of the cockpit recording. Just do a Google search. It's mostly "Allah" this and "Allah" that though... quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx Sternhand4: I thought the story line had Mr. Beamer & co. breaking into the cockpit and crashing the plane into a field in Pa. some where. Since the flight controls and the hijackers were in the cockpit it would stand to reason that the cockpit voice recorder would have picked up these heroics. "Falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" thompson

thompsonx -> RE: The Double Standard rears it's head (3/7/2007 7:27:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity It's pretty easy to find transcripts of the cockpit recording. Just do a Google search. It's mostly "Allah" this and "Allah" that though... Not that they were doing it for some bloodthirsty god or anything though, of course. quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx Sternhand4: I thought the story line had Mr. Beamer & co. breaking into the cockpit and crashing the plane into a field in Pa. some where. Since the flight controls and the hijackers were in the cockpit it would stand to reason that the cockpit voice recorder would have picked up these heroics. "Falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" thompson Sanity: Yup...lots of Alla this and that but no "lets roll" or anything similar. thompson.

Sanity -> RE: The Double Standard rears it's head (3/7/2007 7:31:13 PM)
Yes there is, thompsonx.

WyrdRich -> RE: The Double Standard rears it's head (3/7/2007 7:40:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: WyrdRich The problem Edwards might have now that it has sorta been said (she didn't actually call him anything, did she?) is it will stick. He's always vaguely reminded me of something, and now I know what it is; That creepy guy who just looks way too affluent to be hanging around the restroom of the bus station. It's kinda like when Sinergy mentioned hearing Christopher Walken's voice from Pulp Fiction, every time John McCain speaks. The thought is there now and I can't get it out. WyrdRich: While your profile states you are straight you have requested a homosexual act from me here on the boards. Your avitar does seem to show a rather well to do individual whom most would find strange hanging around a bus station restroom. thompson LOL. Ok, Thom, I've just been ignoring you because it's pointless to engage, but that was funny. My pic shows me dressed up on a special occasion, in a limo somebody else paid for. I get dirty for a living. As for my "request," LOL again. It's only gay if you're on the bottom, as a friend of mine likes to say.

thompsonx -> RE: The Double Standard rears it's head (3/7/2007 7:50:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WyrdRich quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: WyrdRich The problem Edwards might have now that it has sorta been said (she didn't actually call him anything, did she?) is it will stick. He's always vaguely reminded me of something, and now I know what it is; That creepy guy who just looks way too affluent to be hanging around the restroom of the bus station. It's kinda like when Sinergy mentioned hearing Christopher Walken's voice from Pulp Fiction, every time John McCain speaks. The thought is there now and I can't get it out. WyrdRich: While your profile states you are straight you have requested a homosexual act from me here on the boards. Your avitar does seem to show a rather well to do individual whom most would find strange hanging around a bus station restroom. thompson LOL. Ok, Thom, I've just been ignoring you because it's pointless to engage, but that was funny. My pic shows me dressed up on a special occasion, in a limo somebody else paid for. I get dirty for a living. As for my "request," LOL again. It's only gay if you're on the bottom, as a friend of mine likes to say. WyrdRich: While I find you rude and offensive to the n th. degree....You do possess a sense of humor that I truly appreciate. As they say in Oz. Good on ya mate! thompson

thompsonx -> RE: The Double Standard rears it's head (3/7/2007 7:53:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Yes there is, thompsonx. Sanity: As they are wont to say in Missouri...show me. thompson

Page: << < prev 6 7 [8] 9 10 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875