Anger is a gift (Happy 3rd Anniversary!) - Page 8

mousepod · 03-23-2006, 09:51 AM

Just for fun, let's put Nina Totenberg's quote in context, shall we?

Jesse Helms shot first:

Quote:

Sen. Jesse Helms says the government should spend less money on people with AIDS because they got sick as a result of "deliberate, disgusting, revolting conduct," The New York Times reported Wednesday.

Helms, who has often spoken of his disgust for homosexuals, spoke to the Times as the Senate considers whether to renew a federal program for the care and treatment of AIDS patients.

"We've got to have some common sense about a disease transmitted by people deliberately engaging in unnatural acts," Helms told the Times.

Then Nina Totenberg commented:

Quote:

"I think he ought to be worried about what's going on in the Good Lord's mind, because if there is retributive justice, he'll get AIDS from a transfusion or one of his grandchildren will get it." (Inside Washington, ABC-TV, 7/8/95)

Anger? Sure. Hate? Well... certainly from Helms...

Gemini Cricket · 03-23-2006, 10:41 AM

I don't agree with hate speech coming from anyone. However, there does seem to be a double standard when it comes to the right wing. Bill Maher loses his 'Politically Incorrect' job because of his comments and Ann Coulter is still making thousands of dollars for her speeches despite saying that a Supreme Court Justice should be poisoned. That makes no sense. Michael Moore is booed for his comments and slammed by the right, but Michael Savage can say whatever he likes and the right is pretty quiet about his comments.

I mean, how does O'Reilly keep his job after saying the Coit Tower in San Francisco should be attacked?

Double standard.

innerSpaceman · 03-23-2006, 11:22 AM

I see where Sac Town is coming from about anger morphing into apathy, and the soul rot that attends.

But anger is too destructive to ourselves. I just can't keep it up. (anger, that is). Was George Bush ever affected one iota by my anger? Or was it only me?

I'm pretty apathetic about things now. This administration may take the cake in many regards, but power has been a corrupt force always and everywhere. I still feel the way I feel about things. I still know evil when I see it and smell it. It's not required that I get riled up, it's not required that I go and "do something" about it. There's nothing I have to prove or demonstrate or accomplish in order for my soul to be pure and good. It just is.

Relax, SacTown, my brother - - you're a good soul. Nothing's gonna stop that. No warrantless NSA search can penetrate. Your soul is safe, and anger will only give you ulcers.

scaeagles · 03-23-2006, 11:24 AM

Double standard on both sides. It goes back to what I said earlier, that "hate speech" is defined by the listener depending on the ideological agreement with the speaker of said "hate speech".

The things I posted are no different than what MBC posted. They are about wishing harm or death upon someone. Not a good thing. O'Reilly is a full of himself, self rghteous, and oft inconsistent moron. I have never heard Savage.

Not Afraid · 03-23-2006, 02:41 PM

Don't worry. The right is catching up pretty quickly.

Gemini Cricket · 03-23-2006, 04:48 PM

What I'm trying to do with my anger with this administration is not let it get to me. And I also think it's important to direct my anger to this administration by writing as many letters as I can and calling as many politicians as I can. I can't tell you how many calls I made to Feinstein and Boxer before I left (now Kerry and Kennedy). Not to mention my local reps etc. It's important that they know my disgust. They are working for us after all...

Nephythys · 03-23-2006, 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gemini Cricket

They are working for us after all...

I don't think they know it.

Ghoulish Delight · 03-23-2006, 05:47 PM

I will say this...I happen to agree with Pelosi that it's time to forget about the "impeachemnt" angle, and not just because of the uncontrollable shakes I get every time I think of the phrase "President Cheney".

When the spying program first leaked, I was all for an impeachment vote, or at the very least a serious investigation. If anything could have motivated the Republicans to wake up and start questioning their leadership like they should, that was it.

But the moment's passed. It's clear that it ain't gonna happen. So let it go and move on. Now, I'm not saying completely drop the issue. It's important to remind the voters that the Republicans in congress made the decission to not hold their leaders accountable for their actions. But the absolute WORST thing that could happen to the Democratic party is to regain control of Congress and make their first action impeachment of the President. Because then it's just petty vengefullness and questionable priorities.

Unless the anger comes from both sides of the aisle, no matter how justified the anger is, it's going to be looked at as "partisan politics" and dismissed. I hope that the Democrats would just get in there, and start making correct decissions going forward, rather than focusing their energy on this red herring.

Speaking of red herrings, my more cynical side thinks that Bush's declining popularity is all part of a devious plan by the Republican party. Having realized that they were far too late for any ammount of backtracking to win enough people back over, instead the goal is to now move Bush and crew as far to the extreme right as possible, so that come election time, the miffed centrists of the party won't say, "Damn, I've woken up and seen what's really going on. Screw the Republicans I'm jumpin' ship", they can say, "Damn, I've woken up and seen that Bush really is off the deep end. But hey, my Republican representative is saying the same thing, so I'll just vote him back in and he can stear things back on course."

The Shadoe · 03-23-2006, 11:10 PM

Saddam wouldn't ask us, would he? Yet when you hear actual Iraqi citizens in the villages, it would appear that they do want us there helping them. Laura Ingraham recently went all out on the Today show, criticizing them for not telling the whole story, not talking to the soldiers, and not talking to the citizens. It looks like there has now been an Ingraham effect... what's that? More positive news from Iraq? Seems like MSM is trying to paint LI as being wrong. Too late.

As far as imperialism goes, I urge everyone to read a political science textbook. The United States isn't practicing imperialism. A requirement to be imperial is to actually have an empire. We don't have one. Another requirement of imperialism is that one nation is trying to extend it's rule over another nation. Again, we aren't making American laws. The Iraqi's now have an elected government who are drafting a constitution and are making up the law of the land for the Iraqis. By the Iraqis and for the Iraqis. That's not imperialistic.

What I described really isn't at all fundamentally different from our own situation when we were founded, Japan, or Germany.

wendybeth · 03-23-2006, 11:24 PM

"Read a political science textbook"?

Only one?

Uhm, okay. Circa 1977 was the first. Since then, I've lost track how many. And that's just textbooks. I've also read a plethora of political and historical biographies, which imho are far more valuable than any dry textbook. I've lived a fair amount of time, and seen a lot- a lot that you've maybe only read about. Don't believe the rhetoric, Shadoe- that's ignorance. Investigate and look at all possible sides before you form such strong opinions. Don't let other people make them for you, just because they use big words and know important people. No one is infallible, and everyone has an agenda. Find out what it is, and if you can live with it and all it's ramifications, then go for it. But you had better be able to back it up, and not with anything by Ms. Ingraham. She's just too much like that snotty co-ed from Animal House. (shudder).

Oh, and from Mirriam-Webster Online:
imperialism

One entry found for imperialism.
Main Entry: im·pe·ri·al·ism

Pronunciation: im-'pir-E-&-"li-z&m
Function: noun
1 : imperial government, authority, or system
2 : the policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas; broadly : the extension or imposition of power, authority, or influence <union imperialism>
- im·pe·ri·al·ist

/-list/ noun or adjective
- im·pe·ri·al·is·tic

/-"pir-E-&-'lis-tik/ adjective
- im·pe·ri·al·is·ti·cal·ly

/-ti-k(&-)lE/ adverb

03-23-2006, 10:41 AM	#2
Gemini Cricket ... Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 13,244	I don't agree with hate speech coming from anyone. However, there does seem to be a double standard when it comes to the right wing. Bill Maher loses his 'Politically Incorrect' job because of his comments and Ann Coulter is still making thousands of dollars for her speeches despite saying that a Supreme Court Justice should be poisoned. That makes no sense. Michael Moore is booed for his comments and slammed by the right, but Michael Savage can say whatever he likes and the right is pretty quiet about his comments. I mean, how does O'Reilly keep his job after saying the Coit Tower in San Francisco should be attacked? Double standard.
	Submit to Quotes

03-23-2006, 11:22 AM	#3
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	I see where Sac Town is coming from about anger morphing into apathy, and the soul rot that attends. But anger is too destructive to ourselves. I just can't keep it up. (anger, that is). Was George Bush ever affected one iota by my anger? Or was it only me? I'm pretty apathetic about things now. This administration may take the cake in many regards, but power has been a corrupt force always and everywhere. I still feel the way I feel about things. I still know evil when I see it and smell it. It's not required that I get riled up, it's not required that I go and "do something" about it. There's nothing I have to prove or demonstrate or accomplish in order for my soul to be pure and good. It just is. Relax, SacTown, my brother - - you're a good soul. Nothing's gonna stop that. No warrantless NSA search can penetrate. Your soul is safe, and anger will only give you ulcers.
	Submit to Quotes

03-23-2006, 11:24 AM	#4
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	Double standard on both sides. It goes back to what I said earlier, that "hate speech" is defined by the listener depending on the ideological agreement with the speaker of said "hate speech". The things I posted are no different than what MBC posted. They are about wishing harm or death upon someone. Not a good thing. O'Reilly is a full of himself, self rghteous, and oft inconsistent moron. I have never heard Savage.
	Submit to Quotes

03-23-2006, 02:41 PM	#5
Not Afraid HI! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 17,108	Don't worry. The right is catching up pretty quickly.
	Submit to Quotes

03-23-2006, 04:48 PM	#6
Gemini Cricket ... Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 13,244	What I'm trying to do with my anger with this administration is not let it get to me. And I also think it's important to direct my anger to this administration by writing as many letters as I can and calling as many politicians as I can. I can't tell you how many calls I made to Feinstein and Boxer before I left (now Kerry and Kennedy). Not to mention my local reps etc. It's important that they know my disgust. They are working for us after all...
	Submit to Quotes

03-23-2006, 05:47 PM	#8
Ghoulish Delight I Floop the Pig Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Alternative Swankstyle Posts: 19,348	I will say this...I happen to agree with Pelosi that it's time to forget about the "impeachemnt" angle, and not just because of the uncontrollable shakes I get every time I think of the phrase "President Cheney". When the spying program first leaked, I was all for an impeachment vote, or at the very least a serious investigation. If anything could have motivated the Republicans to wake up and start questioning their leadership like they should, that was it. But the moment's passed. It's clear that it ain't gonna happen. So let it go and move on. Now, I'm not saying completely drop the issue. It's important to remind the voters that the Republicans in congress made the decission to not hold their leaders accountable for their actions. But the absolute WORST thing that could happen to the Democratic party is to regain control of Congress and make their first action impeachment of the President. Because then it's just petty vengefullness and questionable priorities. Unless the anger comes from both sides of the aisle, no matter how justified the anger is, it's going to be looked at as "partisan politics" and dismissed. I hope that the Democrats would just get in there, and start making correct decissions going forward, rather than focusing their energy on this red herring. Speaking of red herrings, my more cynical side thinks that Bush's declining popularity is all part of a devious plan by the Republican party. Having realized that they were far too late for any ammount of backtracking to win enough people back over, instead the goal is to now move Bush and crew as far to the extreme right as possible, so that come election time, the miffed centrists of the party won't say, "Damn, I've woken up and seen what's really going on. Screw the Republicans I'm jumpin' ship", they can say, "Damn, I've woken up and seen that Bush really is off the deep end. But hey, my Republican representative is saying the same thing, so I'll just vote him back in and he can stear things back on course." __________________ 'He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.' -TJ
	Submit to Quotes

03-23-2006, 11:10 PM	#9
The Shadoe Save Marshall Field's! Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Saint Paul, MN Posts: 72	Saddam wouldn't ask us, would he? Yet when you hear actual Iraqi citizens in the villages, it would appear that they do want us there helping them. Laura Ingraham recently went all out on the Today show, criticizing them for not telling the whole story, not talking to the soldiers, and not talking to the citizens. It looks like there has now been an Ingraham effect... what's that? More positive news from Iraq? Seems like MSM is trying to paint LI as being wrong. Too late. As far as imperialism goes, I urge everyone to read a political science textbook. The United States isn't practicing imperialism. A requirement to be imperial is to actually have an empire. We don't have one. Another requirement of imperialism is that one nation is trying to extend it's rule over another nation. Again, we aren't making American laws. The Iraqi's now have an elected government who are drafting a constitution and are making up the law of the land for the Iraqis. By the Iraqis and for the Iraqis. That's not imperialistic. What I described really isn't at all fundamentally different from our own situation when we were founded, Japan, or Germany. __________________ I am The Shadoe.
	Submit to Quotes

03-23-2006, 11:24 PM	#10
wendybeth Nevermind Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,847	"Read a political science textbook"? Only one? Uhm, okay. Circa 1977 was the first. Since then, I've lost track how many. And that's just textbooks. I've also read a plethora of political and historical biographies, which imho are far more valuable than any dry textbook. I've lived a fair amount of time, and seen a lot- a lot that you've maybe only read about. Don't believe the rhetoric, Shadoe- that's ignorance. Investigate and look at all possible sides before you form such strong opinions. Don't let other people make them for you, just because they use big words and know important people. No one is infallible, and everyone has an agenda. Find out what it is, and if you can live with it and all it's ramifications, then go for it. But you had better be able to back it up, and not with anything by Ms. Ingraham. She's just too much like that snotty co-ed from Animal House. (shudder). Oh, and from Mirriam-Webster Online: imperialism One entry found for imperialism. Main Entry: im·pe·ri·al·ism Pronunciation: im-'pir-E-&-"li-z&m Function: noun 1 : imperial government, authority, or system 2 : the policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas; broadly : the extension or imposition of power, authority, or influence <union imperialism> - im·pe·ri·al·ist /-list/ noun or adjective - im·pe·ri·al·is·tic /-"pir-E-&-'lis-tik/ adjective - im·pe·ri·al·is·ti·cal·ly /-ti-k(&-)lE/ adverb __________________ Last edited by wendybeth : 03-23-2006 at 11:31 PM.
	Submit to Quotes