[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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



	>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.

>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.
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.
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. 

>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.

>>  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.

>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.

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

>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?
Please, I'm not 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.>

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

I can.
His IQ level can.
Most people really watching can.
Even my pop who is a die-hard Republican can.
Wonder why you can't.
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?
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.

>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.

>What lie?

The altering of historical facts in order to save face.

>Is the content of speeches being altered?

The contents of what was said and what occurred is being altered.  That's
what's important.
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.

>When I was a reporter,

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

>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.

>>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??

>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.

>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.

>"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

Why not talk about The Who Leslie?

"For a century and a half now, America and Japan have formed one of the
great and enduring alliances of modern times."-Tokyo, Japan, Feb. 18, 2002
"I understand that the unrest in the Middle East creates unrest throughout
the region."-Washington, D.C., March 13, 2002
George "boy genius" Bush
Kevin in VT