Re: must agree on maher (no Who - in other words POLITICS!)

[Crouching Intern Stolen Sofa <emerald.eyes@rcn.com>]

On Wed, 17 Apr 2002 12:57:31 -0400, "O'Neal, Kevin W."
<Kevin.ONeal@vtmednet.org> wrote:

>	>Subject: Re: must agree on maher (no Who - in other words
>POLITICS!) 
>	>From: Crouching Intern Stolen Sofa 
>>
>>I never tried to paint you as being sympathetic to them, and I'm sorry
>>if it came out that way at all. 
>
>Whoops, no, didn't say you did.  Just a pre-emptive request not to go there.
>

OK, I wouldn't do that.

>>I just don't believe that it takes "balls, conviction and plenty of
>>courage" to overtake a small group of unarmed civilians and kill them,
>>along with themselves.
>
>Look, we agree it was a despicable act.  I too lost friends.  My sister lost
>her inner-college-circle of friends except for their leader....Howard
>"Howie" Lutkin.
>But, you have to stop and think about what makes people do such extreme
>things.

To be perfectly honest, I don't give a crap what "motivated" them.
They nearly killed me and almost destroyed my home, so I have no
intention of validating their atrocities by pondering what compelled
them to do so.

>Ok, don't have to think about it long, but if you consider these people
>sacrificed their lives for this and their cause, you can see the "balls" of
>which I speak.

Not really. Suicide isn't uncommon.

>I don't agree with them for even a fraction of a second, but surely the US
>isn't so arrogant as not to consider their motivations and commitment.
>Actually, not considering their motivations is what contributed to this
>latest mess. 
>

That last statement is what really gets to me -- that we're somehow
responsible for what happened that morning. As far as I'm concerned,
once a group engages in this type of activity, their agenda is taken
off the table and not even looked at for decades to come. 

To turn around after the attacks and start "considering their
motivations" just tells them that massacring us gets results that they
want.

>>It was an instantaneous death for them, as
>>opposed to those who were trapped in the twin towers for more than an
>>hour, suffocating before being crushed to death.
>
>I don't see the relevance of this statement.
>

That's it's not a particularly brave death, what the hijackers did.
It's over in an instant. No suffering, no agonizing.

>>>  Hey, I'm not the one
>>>who said "left-wing idiots".
>>
>>I meant to send that to someone privately, and forgot to check the
>>"To:" line in my email.
>
><snicker>  A lot of that going around these days too!!
>But, it does show your mind-set.
>My sister-in-law while drunk once said to me "all Democrats are assholes".
>She later told me she wasn't talking about me or my wife, but........
>I think you get the picture.
>

No, it's not my mindset. I differentiate between normal Democrats and
noxious windbags like, say, Alec Baldwin. Unfortunately, too many
celebrities fall more into the Baldwin camp than the normal one.

But this wasn't the first time that I sent a mail to the list when I
meant to send to an individual. Around the same time, I sent my entire
list to the Whoboots list, when I meant to send it to one desperate
newbie. On the bright side, I'm acquiring lots and lots of stuff in
trades that I never would have otherwise gotten. :-)

>>and was hoping that the members of the Who at least
>>speak rationally and intelligently about political issues.
>
>I think you would be dismayed to learn TED's political ideology.
>

Are they lefties or idiot lefties like Baldwin? I don't mind the
leftie stuff so much as I do the loudmouth idiots.

>>>Also was wondering to myself why the only few times you post are regarding
>>>political topics.
>>
>>Not true. I don't post often, but I do post to a few Who lists (and
>>other non-related lists) on an occasional basis.
>
>Well, I apologize then.  But, to me, it seems that you have been in the
>center of the latest political "discussions" and I can't really think of a
>Who-related topic you had participated in on this list or others I lurk on.
>And hey, with a "handle" like "crouching intern stolen couch", you make it
>pretty clear what your particular main interest and affiliation on said
>interest is.
>

I just haven't thought of a new handle yet, and I don't want to change
too often and piss off the people who have me killfiled. :-D  But I am
open to suggestions and am considering some Who-related ones.

>>I have no idea who starts what, and have never made any accusations.
>
>Again, never said you did make any accusations.  But, if my memory serves,
>the last political "discussion" was started by someone questioning/taking
>issue with Mark Leaman's signature.
>And, despite Mark trying to steer the list debates back to The Who, kept up
>until Paul had to intervene.
>Was that you who posed the first question?

Nope.

>I'm just too lazy to check the archives at the moment.
>At any rate, you sure did jump on the bandwagon.
>
>>What facts <White House Historical Record> were changed?
>
>Did you *read* the article???

Yeah.

>Oh, and please don't fall back on the 'ol liberal press argument.  Surely
>you can do better than that.
>

I don't even have to respond, what with you doing it for me! <g>

>>Did you ever think that maybe the official
>>transcripts are based on the text of the speeches, which is written in
>>advance of him giving speeches?
>
>Never crossed my mind.  Are the text of the speeches written in advance?

Yes. And usually rehearsed, as well.

>Please, I'm not stupid.

I wouldn't bother with you if I thought you're stupid.

>Here's a quote from the article:
><The most public allegation of transcript sanitizing was last September,
>when White House press secretary Ari Fleischer warned that Americans "need
>to watch what they say." The phrase did not at first appear in the White
>House transcript.>
>

Yes, but it was very publicized at the time, and since then too.

>I think the article paints a pretty fair and telling story of what is
>happening.
>
>>Talking "on your feet" signifies nothing more than your comfort level
>>at speaking before large groups of people -- and the media.
>
>So, you're saying our President, a professional politician, isn't
>comfortable speaking in front of large groups of people?

Yes. And I don't think that that ability is the most important thing.

>He seemed pretty comfortable while speaking to the world at the joint
>session of congress right after 9/11.  Again, when he's comfortable with the
>subject matter (and who wouldn't be comfortable speaking out against that
>atrocity of 9/11) he's fine, it's the subject matter he's *not* comfortable
>with that causes him problems.  The problem is, *that's* the business of
>this country and what his job is.
>

And I don't place all that high of a priority on it.

>>and while I'm not terribly thrilled him these days, I can't say
>>that he's stupid.
>
>I can.
>His IQ level can.

Really? What's his IQ? Where has it been verified? And please don't
tell me you fell for that scam from last year, which ranked Clinton as
having an IQ in the 180s and Bush's as about half of that. 

>Most people really watching can.

Really? But they seem to like and trust him a great deal.

>Even my pop who is a die-hard Republican can.

My diehard Republican dad is too pissed off at him these days.

>Wonder why you can't.

Because I've met and talked with him, and have heard him talk without
notes.

>Oh, and sorry you're not thrilled with him either.  Join the club.
>
>>I judge people on the content of what they say, not
>>the style in which they say it.
>
>So, you're judging George on the contents of his speeches?  The same
>speeches that are written *for* him?
>Why not on his understanding of those speeches?

Like all Presidents, he has significant input regarding what goes into
his speeches and can take out anything he wishes. 

He gives the speech writers the basic ideas he wants to get across,
they write up drafts, he goes over them to point out what he likes and
what has to go. He adds notes and suggestions, and eventually they all
come up with a speech that he likes.

>And surely my recent Bush-quotes in my signature have shown that he just has
>some gaps in his brain.  I mean please...check out my signature today.
>That's just plain stupid, any way you cut it.
>

Or just very tongue-tied. That sometimes happens with people who think
much faster than they speak.

>>Something very minor.
>
>Most Democrats don't believe changing the official historical record of The
>White House, the same record that will be analyzed for generations to come
>and reflects reality, is minor.
>Shame you don't see it that way.
>

I see no reason to get all hysterical over not inserting some gaffes
or "ums and uhs" into the text of a speech. Like I said, newspapers do
it every day.

>>What lie?
>
>The altering of historical facts in order to save face.
>

I still don't know what facts were altered.

>>Is the content of speeches being altered?
>
>The contents of what was said and what occurred is being altered.  That's
>what's important.

Then you should be pretty distraught about the 41 previous
administrations that undoubtedly did the same thing.

>Stop for a moment and ask yourself why.  Go on.  Why would this
>administration want to "sanitize" what W says.
>I have the answer if you need help.
>

Because it's a standard practice that far pre-dates him.

>>When I was a reporter,
>
>What????  You mean the press aren't *all* Liberal scum bags????
>Oh wait, you're *no longer* a reporter.  
>

And I wasn't a liberal then. :-D

>>it was a common practice to clean up most grammatical errors
>>in direct quotes, unless it changed the actual content of the quotes
>>or if keeping the errors was somehow important to the story.
>
>But, you weren't recording the official historical record for The White
>House.
>Keeping in the record that Bush had to begin a speech 3x and made other
>comments because of protest and chants is a true reflection of what
>happened.
>

Name one administration that altered prepared texts to show "ums" and
"uhs" and gaffes, to present as some sort of official record.

Many times, prepared text is handed out to the media *before* speeches
are even made.

>>>Please don't ask me to defend Clinton and the whole Monica-scank debacle.
>>
>>I didn't ask you to defend it.
>
>Did I say you did??
>

You brought it up...

>>unless you consider a paragraph and a
>>link *above* your name to be a signature. I just thought it was
>>something you were tossing into the debate.
>
>A quote and a link does constitute a signature.  See yours below.
>

Yeah, but they're *below* my name. Since yours was above your name, I
thought it was part of your response.

>>It just means that he's not always glib when talking to large groups.
>
>Glib=uncomfortable?
>Not by my handy-dandy Webster's Dictionary sitting here.
>

If I wanted to use the word "uncomfortable," I would have used it. :-)

>Why not talk about The Who Leslie?
>

I have before, and will again. I just don't know as much about them as
most others here do, so I tend to sit back and read. Unless, of
course, you want to start a Who-related topic.

Leslie


--
"Every one of the innocents who died on Sept. 11 was the most important person on earth to somebody. 
Every death extinguished a world." -- President George W. Bush, 12/11/2001

www.hillary-watch.org