|
| I HAVE INTELLIGENT LIBERAL FRIENDS |
| Friday, March 31, 2006 |
| Why is it that those who speak for them are...well, you read, and tell me what you think:
Anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan: "We're not going to cure terrorism and spread peace and good will in the Middle East by killing innocent people or -- I'm not even saying our bullets and bombs are killing them. The occupation - they don't have food, they don't have clean water, they don't have electricity. They don't have medicine, they don't have doctors. We need to get our military presence out of there, and that's what's gonna start building good will....I see Iraq as the base for spreading imperialism...."
Host Chris Matthews: "Are you considering running for Congress, Cindy?"
Sheehan: "No, not this time...."
Matthews: "Okay. Well, I have to tell you, you sound more informed than most U.S. Congresspeople, so maybe you should run." -- Exchange on MSNBC's Hardball, August 15.
______________________________________
Ted Turner: "I am absolutely convinced that the North Koreans are absolutely sincere. There's really no reason for them to cheat [on nukes]....I looked them right in the eyes. And they looked like they meant the truth. I mean, you know, just because somebody's done something wrong in the past doesn't mean they can't do right in the future or the present. That happens all the, all the time."
Wolf Blitzer: "But this is one of the most despotic regimes and Kim Jong-Il is one of the worst men on Earth. Isn't that a fair assessment?"
Turner: "Well, I didn't get to meet him, but he didn't look bad in the pictures that I've seen of him on CNN, he didn't look too much different than most other people I've met."
Blitzer: "But, look at the way, look at the way he's, look at the way he's treating his own people."
Turner: "Well, hey, listen. I saw a lot of people over there. They were thin and they were riding bicycles instead of driving in cars, but-"
Blitzer: "A lot of those people are starving."
Turner: "I didn't see any, I didn't see any brutality...." -- Exchange on CNN's The Situation Room, September 19. |
posted by Jack Mercer @ 3/31/2006 01:54:00 PM   |
|
|
|
| SO FUNNY! |
| Thursday, March 30, 2006 |
| Gene Shalit Can't Help But Reference Global Warming In Ice Age II Review | NewsBusters.org: "Gene Shalit: 'Good morning and welcome to the Critic's Corner. Think global warming isn't real? Ask Manny the Mammoth, Diego the Tiger or Sid the Sloth. They first met in the animated hit Ice Age and they formed an unlikely herd. Now in Ice Age: The Meltdown they're fleeing floods of melting ice and the results are joyous.... Carlos Saldahna's direction and the smart three-scribe script makes this Ice Age very cool. The herd's happy 88 happy minutes will melt away your out-of-theater cares while attesting that global warming is no snow job." |
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 3/30/2006 04:43:00 PM |
|
|
|
| Afghan Convert Is Released, Then Vanishes - Yahoo! News |
| Tuesday, March 28, 2006 |
| Afghan Convert Is Released, Then Vanishes - Yahoo! News: "'Abdul Rahman must be killed. Islam demands it,' said senior Cleric Faiez Mohammed, from the nearby northern city of Kunduz. 'The Christian foreigners occupying Afghanistan are attacking our religion.'" |
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 3/28/2006 11:27:00 AM |
|
|
|
| It's the competence stupid |
| Monday, March 20, 2006 |
| It's the competence stupid
James "cue-ball" Carville will always be known for one thing and one thing only. He's the political operative who coined the phrase, "it's the economy stupid," and by doing so, helped Bill Clinton win the presidency in 1992.
For several months, I've been telling my friends that the winning theme of the 2008 presidential election is going to be "it's the competency stupid." In my years of covering and predicting politics, I've never been more sure of anything.
Democrats are the first to latch on to the theme, but that doesn't mean that they will be the ones to ride it to victory. The next President will be someone with administrative experience and a record of competence.
Here's why.
Conservative ideologues like myself are irreparably disillusioned. We installed a Republican Congress in 1994 and gave them a Republican President in 2000. They have been the biggest ideological disappointment in the history of politics. Many of us have permanently given up on Republicans as conservative reformers. If they surprise us someday, we'll be pleased and supportive, but we no longer expect it.
We're hopeful, but not stupid.
The Bush administration has not just disappointed on reform issues. It has disappointed on more mundane fronts, from Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers to the Dubai ports deal. Being disillusioned is one thing. Being disillusioned and embarrassed is another. Many conservatives are ready to elect a president who simply knows how to make the trains run on time, even if we disagree with him on reform issues, because we no longer trust anyone to reform government.
That's why former New York Mayor Rudi Giuliani is the man to watch.
Ralph Bristol |
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 3/20/2006 04:19:00 PM |
|
|
|
| POOR TAX |
|
| I doubt if it will surprise you to learn that, in South Carolina, those who can afford it the least spend the most on the lottery. Because North Carolina is about to begin its own lottery program, the Charlotte Observer analyzed four years of data from its neighbor to the south and found that not only spend a higher proportion of their incomes on lottery tickets, they spend more money than other income groups.
Duke University public policy professor Philip Cook, who has studied lotteries, told the Observer that in most states, the dollar amount spent on lotteries generally does not fluctuate much over income brackets. But in South Carolina, the Observer found that lower-income people spend more - a lot more. People earning less than $30,000 a year spent an estimated $627 per household annually, nearly triple the spending of those making more than $50,000.
Cook said it's not immediately clear why that is, but he says race could be a factor. Cook said minorities have historically been over-represented among lottery players. In South Carolina, households with the same income levels in predominantly black neighborhoods generally spent more money than people in predominantly white neighborhoods.
About 70 percent of South Carolina's lottery profits are given to higher education, and most of that in the form of Life, Hope and Palmetto scholarships based on SAT scores and grade point averages. Unfortunately, not too many poor black kids are in those groups.
To review, the South Carolina Lottery is a scheme that tricks poor uneducated black people into paying for the college education of smart, middle-class white kids. Some people tried to warn that this would be the effect, but they were largely dismissed as right-wing religious extremists, using racial stereotypes to try to deprive poor people of a better education. |
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 3/20/2006 11:32:00 AM |
|
|
|
| HAPPINESS |
|
| Quite a few of the Snipet posts have been dedicated to the angst and anger of the dedicated left. The results of this poll are fascinating and worth looking at.
Pew Research Center: Are We Happy Yet?: "Several of them stand out: Married people are happier than unmarrieds. People who worship frequently are happier than those who don't. Republicans are happier than Democrats. Whites and Hispanics are happier than blacks. Sunbelt residents are happier than those who live in the rest of the country." |
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 3/15/2006 11:20:00 AM |
|
|
|
| WE DESERVE THE GOVERNMENT WE GET |
|
| I always wondered about the collective IQ of the people of Massachusetts as they continue to elect Ted Kennedy year after year until someone from that state explained it to me. Kennedy brings home the bacon.
I am not saying that DeLay is guilty. He has not yet gone before the courts. But year in, year out people vote for the same people regardless of character or reputation simply because of their own greed and sense of entitlement.
Yes, the only people we have to blame for the government we have is ourselves.
CNN.com - DeLay wins GOP primary - Mar 8, 2006: "HOUSTON, Texas (CNN) -- Despite being indicted and relegated to the back benches, Rep. Tom DeLay's political stock remained strong enough with the folks back home for him to win Tuesday night's primary election in his Houston-area district." |
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 3/13/2006 02:58:00 PM |
|
|
|
| Townhall.com :: Columns :: An anti-American hero by John Leo - Mar 13, 2006 |
|
| Townhall.com :: Columns :: An anti-American hero by John Leo - Mar 13, 2006: "Rachel Corrie, a young American woman accidentally flattened by an Israeli bulldozer during a protest in Gaza three years ago, is a hero to Palestinians and the anti-American left. When she died, a photo of her burning an American flag sealed her high status on the left. Her honors included many vigils, memorials, buildings named for her, at least two plays, an annual pancake breakfest and the Rachel Corrie Award for courage in the teaching of writing. Why helping people learn to write should require courage is not explained.
I have been planning for some time to write about America's peculiar awards, prizes and memorials, and the flourishing of Rachel Corrie awards is a good excuse to list some of them.
Stanford University gives the Allan Cox medal each year for faculty excellence in guiding student research. Cox was a professor of geophysics and dean of the school of earth sciences at Stanford. He committed suicide in 1987 while under investigation for sexually molesting the son of a former student. The molesting allegedly went on for five years, starting when the boy was 14. " |
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 3/13/2006 10:38:00 AM |
|
|
|
| WHITE ELITISM |
| Tuesday, March 07, 2006 |
| I would say that, you know, we are a little bit out of touch in Hollywood every once in a while, I think. It's probably a good thing. We're the ones who talk about AIDS when it was just being whispered and we talked about civil rights when it wasn't really popular, and we -- you know, we bring up subjects. We're the ones -- this academy, this group of people who gave Hattie McDaniel an Oscar in 1939 when blacks were still sitting in the backs of theaters. I'm proud to be a part of this academy. -George Clooney. Oscars 2006 |
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 3/07/2006 10:50:00 AM |
|
|
|
| BARBARA - "BUSH IS DUMMBE" |
| Monday, March 06, 2006 |
| If I was attacking someone and accusing them of being dumb, I guess the first thing I would do is try to qualify myself as being smarter and worthy of passing such judgement. This is hilarious!
DRUDGE REPORT FLASH 2005� |
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 3/06/2006 12:04:00 PM |
|
|
|
| RELIGIOUS ZEALOTRY |
| Thursday, March 02, 2006 |
| I happened to listen to the high school teacher who was bashing Bush, Capitalism, etc. This guy is a religious zealot! I would expect to hear the same fire and brimstone coming from the pulpit. Its pretty amazing.
Newsradio 850 KOA |
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 3/02/2006 09:34:00 PM |
|
|
|
| I DO NOT UNDERSTAND |
| Wednesday, March 01, 2006 |
| In my blog travels I have discussed many issues with many people. One thing I do not understand within these discussions is the use of profane expletives in written form. I understand that when one is verbally speaking that the use of profanity is often habit or a part of one's cultural upbringing, but I cannot for the life of me understand one's use of it in a written format. Everything I write, every word choice is a conscious decision, and if this is the case for all, then I find it difficult to understand the kind of mind who would conscientiously choose course or offensive words to express what they mean.
Here are some examples of communications I have received or witnessed on 'blogs:
****WARNING. THE FOLLOWING CONTAINS OFFENSIVE LANGUAGE. PLEASE DO NOT READ IF OFFENDED BY SUCH***
"Jack, you are so full of shit on this one I can't fucking believe it."
"Jack, you fucking liar"
"you and your emoticon smiley faces can fuck off."
"Gee, thanks for all your "less government" bullshit, you fucking conservative hypocrites."
"You know its hard for me to even get that pissed at Bush anymore, his fucked-up deal was there for all to see and 50 some million of my countrymen still voted this idiot back in. How could they be so stupid."
"Condi's job at the time was National Security Advisor. It was her job to tutor the dumb fuck."
Of course the examples that can be provided are endless.
I personally think that the use of such during verbal communication has a lot to do with the culture in which one is raised, but the use of such in a written sense has more to do with the level of one's maturity. That is only my guess.
What do you think?
(EP, I'm especially looking for your input here. Thanks!)
P.S.
Some of the comments made above were by one individual. On the individual's blog he wanted to make sure that the whole conversation was made available (for context). Here is the entire post with the resultant comment string:
Freedom is on the march, right off the cliff's edge
Iraqi Government warns of 'endless civil war'
"Iraq's Defence Minister warned yesterday of a "civil war" that "will never end" and said he was ready to put tanks on the streets..."
That is what Bush & Cheney & their PNAC neocon vampires mean when they say "spreading democracy". They spread their "democracy" like rats spread the plague.
The gravest crisis since the US invasion in 2003 threatens Washington's hopes of withdrawing its 136,000 troops from Iraq.
That's the progress that Bush says we are making.
"If there is a civil war in this country it will never end," Defence Minister Saadoun al-Dulaimi, a minority Sunni Muslim in the Shiite-led interim government, told a news conference. "We are ready to fill the streets with armoured vehicles."
That's the gift of peace he as bestowed up on Iraq.
Don't you think they'll love us for it? Don't you think they'll say, "This is wonderful, what America has done for us"? They certainly won't hold any grudges, or harbor any feelings that we have done them wrong, or become so bitter that they want to lash out at the country that has turned their nation into a theatre of carnage. Who cares as long as the oil ministry is secure, right?
In an interview, Bush said, "History will judge me." In truth, history will curse him.
posted by SheaNC at 1:16 AM
29 Comments:
Smorgasbord said...
I heard Bill Maher say the other night that Iraq was better off under Saddam. I was immediately shocked by that statement because not too many people are bold enough to say it, but it certainly got me thinking.
One of his panelists noted that Saddam managed to bring stability to a previously unmanageable country. The three distinctly different ethnic groups in Iraq were never able to get along before him, and there was never a reason to believe they would get along after him. The only reason there wasn't more strife between these groups under Saddam is that he effectively said, "if anyone's going to do any killing in Iraq, it's going to be me."
On top of everything else that Bush and his cheerleaders should have known, they really should have seen the enormity of this challenge. Yet another reason, of dozens, that we shouldn't have given the finger to the UN. This is a stupid, stupid, stupid war.
10:35 AM
Sean said...
Wow. Better off under Hussein? That certainly is a bold statement. That's like saying Italy was better off under Mussolini, Germany under Hitler, Russian under Stalin. Just because a brutal dictator enforces something that resembles peace does not mean the country is better off.
Cripes. There was a lack of sectarian fighting in Iraq under Hussein, not peace. That lack of fighting only came about because Sunnis controlled the military and Hussein did not hesitate to wipe out anyone that dared challenge him.
Bill Maher is an ass.
As for the civil war, the current sectarian violence erupted after one of the holiest sites in Shiite Islam was destroyed.
"The blueprints of that unfortunate event, the blueprints of al Qaeda in Iraq is there," al-Rubaie told CNN's "Late Edition With Wolf Blitzer."
But he said, "The Iraqi people ... have shown al Qaeda in Iraq and the outside world that they will never be driven to the civil war."
2:27 PM
Jack Mercer said...
I agree with Shea in some aspects. I think the middle-eastern barbarians incapable of civilization, much less democracy.
-Jack
2:49 PM
Jack Mercer said...
Smorg,
There would have been those who said that Americans were better off under King George--of course many of them did, and left for Canada. Poor old Bill isn't particularly bold so much as a bit soft in the head. He needs to stick to his own quote: "A journalist is basically a chronicler, not an interpreter of events. Where else in society do you have the license to eavesdrop on so many different conversations as you have in journalism? Where else can you delve into the life of our times? I consider myself a fortunate man to have a forum for my curiosity." :)
-Jack
2:58 PM
SheaNC said...
This post has been removed by the author.
1:05 AM
SheaNC said...
Jack ("I agree with Shea in some aspects. I think the middle-eastern barbarians incapable of civilization, much less democracy.")
I'm not sure in which aspects you agree with me, but please do not associate my statements with an opinion like that. I'm aware of your contempt for middle-eastern people. I thoroughly disagree with your position, and more's the pity that you would perpetuate such things.
1:07 AM
wolnosc said...
Better off than Americans under George Bush?
Jack, WHO are the barbarians?
7:42 AM
Jack Mercer said...
Oh, Shea, I thought that was what you were inferring! Isn't that what the left thinks about democracy in the middle east? (They have been predicting civil war, quagmires, anarchy, theocracies, etc.,etc.)
"That's the gift of peace he as bestowed up on Iraq.
Don't you think they'll love us for it? Don't you think they'll say, "This is wonderful, what America has done for us"? They certainly won't hold any grudges, or harbor any feelings that we have done them wrong, or become so bitter that they want to lash out at the country that has turned their nation into a theatre of carnage."
Yep, those poor, ignorant, barbaric middle easterners...
-Jack
9:18 AM
SheaNC said...
"Isn't that what the left thinks about democracy in the middle east?" - Jack, your assesments of "what the left thinks" are usually quite inaccurate, and this is no exception.
Don't try to project your foul predjudices onto me. You are the one who maintains that attitude, and you can claim ownership of it. If you feel guilty about it, fine, but don't try to console yourself by pretending that I share your opinion.
9:57 AM
Jack Mercer said...
Ha! Shea, you crack me up. "Foul pre[d]judices" :) You sound so...godlike!
I really don't understand, Shea, I just simply agreed with you and you jumped on me all self-righteous like. Here is where I got my impression of what the left believes:
"We don't need another Iran- or Afghanistan-style theocracy here." Shea - Constantly Amazed 'Blog
"At best, Iraq will be a fundamentalist Shiite theocracy that will quickly ally itself with neighboring Shiite Iran, and almost certainly become an enemy of the United States." Shea - Constantly Amazed 'Blog
"You can't bring democracy to a country that is more comfortable with tribal culture and would rather have a Islamic theocracy" Shea - Constantly Amazed 'Blog
"No matter how many times the Administration denies it, there is no question they misled the nation and led us into a quagmire in Iraq." Ted Kennedy
""[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..." Sen. John F. Kerry
"It's not going to get better. They've been overly optimistic. This is a civil war where two participants are fighting with each other trying to win supremacy, and our troops are caught in between." John Murtha
"Iraq is becoming a kind of Vietnam" Mike Wallace
""That is Countdown for this, the 1,012th day since the declaration of 'Mission Accomplished' in Iraq. I'm Keith Olbermann. Good night and good luck."
""The longer we stay in Iraq, the more similarities will start to develop [Vietnam], meaning essentially that we are getting more and more bogged down, taking more and more casualties, more and more heated dissension and debate in the United States." Senator Chuch Hagel
Of course, I could keep on going quite long with quotes, but I think you get the picture.
Shea, I was just repeating what you said. Nothing more, nothing less. Somehow it sounds different though when the sugar coating is removed, doesn't it?
-Jack
11:43 AM
Sean said...
Personally, I think the quotes in the original post are out of context. Yes, a civil war would be a long "never-ending" battle (unless one side succeeded at genocide - can it be genocide if you wipe out people of your own race but different religious sub-group?).
The quote about putting tanks in the street seems to me to be a statement that civil war will not be tolerated and anything resembling it will be swiftly and forcefully squelched (love that word). Iraq's National Security Advisor is saying there will be no civil war, the Iraqi people will resist the terrorist attempt to plunge the country into that situation.
Of course, the car-bomb that just went off killing 10 and injuring 50 near a Shiite mosque isn't helping. Right now Iraq needs some strong, courageous leaders from both the Sunni and Shiite communities to start denouncing, loudly and long, the terrorists perpetrating these attacks.
I hope, for the sake of the average citizen, that this unrest ends soon. It appears to be an all-out last-ditch effort to unravel a fledgling democracy.
12:54 PM
Sean said...
One more thing, Jack is supposed to be the voice of reason. I'm supposed to be the one getting into scraps with Shea. What gives here? :)
12:55 PM
Jack Mercer said...
Sean, Shea indicated that I was pretending that HE shared MY opinion. The truth of the matter was that given his own words, and much I hear from the left I was pretending that I shared HIS opinion. (confused?) Of course my friend Shea has a short memory so I am thankful he has a blog to reference his own comments. :)
Sounds like a voice of reason to me.
(Psst. I don't think Shea particularly likes my sense of humor. :)
-Jack
1:49 PM
Jack Mercer said...
Shea?
9:52 PM
SheaNC said...
Jack, you are so full of shit on this one I can't fucking believe it.
Here is what YOU said: "I think the middle-eastern barbarians incapable of civilization, much less democracy." That's what YOU said, Jack, not me. I never, ever, said anything like that, Jack. NEVER. I challenge you to find a quote of me saying that. You can't. How dare you lie about me like that. That is really low. Obviously, the original Jack Mercer is back.
And don't try to assert that those quotes of mine that you found say what you accuse me of saying, because they don't. I notice you didn't use links, so that no one would know the real context. How very right-wing-misleading of you. How typically averse to the truth. How sadly dishonest of you.
Take this one for example: "We don't need another Iran- or Afghanistan-style theocracy here." That was from a post in my blog where I was talking about the "intelligent design" controversy. Here's the statement in its full context: "Religion and science are two different things. To blur the distinction between them is bad for both. We don't need another Iran- or Afghanistan-style theocracy here. Teach science in school and religion in church, or in a theology class. What's wrong with that?"
Jack goes on to say, "Shea, I was just repeating what you said. Nothing more, nothing less. Somehow it sounds different though when the sugar coating is removed, doesn't it?" You mean, when taken out of context to be twisted to fit your needs. You didn't repeat anything I said when you made your statement, Jack, you fucking liar.
None of the quotes that you attribute to me (some may be mine and some may be from news articles I posted) in any way resemble your bigoted, hateful, demeaning, and insulting assertion that middle eastern people are "barbarians who are incapable of civilization." For you to try to justify your bigotry by trying to hammer my statements into some perverted endorsement of yours is a pretty sad attempt at self-validation.
So I have a short memory, do I, Jack? Maybe so, but at least I don't post lies about you as you did in your comment about me. Take ownership of your own sorry opinions, Jack, and stop projecting.
And another thing; no, I don't like your sense of humor. Not if it involves accusing me of being a bigot like you, and lying about me to do it. You think that's funny? Well, here's a little chuckle for you: next time you think about telling ugly lies about me, then you and your emoticon smiley faces can fuck off.
10:39 PM
chickenhawk said...
ok closed door meeting with the team. i think we all need a break. it has gotten too ugly. take a day or two, go to the nudy bar, or whatever it is that we do. my 25th birthday is in 23 days and i will not have global conflict that develops into internal strife ruin it.
jack and shea, hug it out or something.
sean, bite me (ok i just said that to draw attention away from jack v. shea 2k6)
seriously though guys. seriously.
11:24 PM
SheaNC said...
Okay, chickenhawk. I defer to the voice of reason. Sorry about the mess.
12:35 AM
chickenhawk said...
This just isnt us thats all. No apologies necessary, we've all had our moments.
8:07 AM
Jack Mercer said...
Shea,
I used to tell my debate team that when one is losing an argument the instinct was to attack the individual to divert attention from the argument. Sorry, you have accused me too often of everything from hypocrisy to lying so I am going to keep this one strictly oriented around the argument.
"You can't bring democracy to a country that is more comfortable with tribal culture and would rather have a Islamic theocracy." Shea
or
Tribal (barbarians) are more comfortable with tribal culture (incapable of civilization) and would rather have Islamic theocracy(don't want democracy).
Link:
http://sheanc.blogspot.com/2005/09/when-will-these-truths-be-accepted-by.html
"At best, Iraq will be a fundamentalist Shiite theocracy that will quickly ally itself with neighboring Shiite Iran, and almost certainly become an enemy of the United States."
or
They are incapable of democracy, only theocracy.
Link:
http://sheanc.blogspot.com/2005/09/bush-couldnt-have-done-any-worse.html
"We don't need another Iran- or Afghanistan-style theocracy here."
or
I look down on those people and their choice of government. We don't want it here.
Link:
http://sheanc.blogspot.com/2005/08/quick-one-for-friday-night.html
Shea, I know you get angry and think that if you swear and deny that validates your argument. But while we are not rocket scientist we are intelligent, thinking human beings and we can read for ourselves. Do you think that little of the people who read this blog that we can't figure these things out ourselves?
Shea, the OLD Jack never left. (Yeah, I admit I was a bit salty when I first started blog hopping, but I have been here for many years on this earth, and I haven't changed a whole lot. This "Old Jack/ New Jack" stuff is getting kind of old.) I fully expect a post about "Jack, Neocon infiltrator of Liberal Blogs" (or something like that) Beware, Children, he is out to steal your minds!"
Want to stick to the facts, Shea? Then please explain what exactly you meant with your statements and within your posts. You told me that my impression of the left (and you) is inaccurate. I simply put your statements down (granted, I may be MUCH less "nuanced" than you--so maybe there is some deeper or more nebulous or cosmic meaning)
-Old/New, poisonous, hypocritical, full of shit, dishonest, corrupt, fucking liar, Jack :)
CH,
I bear no animosity toward Shea. I DO want him to be honest and discuss the issue he brought up. And, I would like clarification of what he said if he means something entirely different from what he said. It's a simple discussion and nothing worth getting upset about.
One of the things that I have difficulty understanding with many on the left is that they say something which is pretty black and white (we ALL have prejudices, I just think that some are unwilling to admit them) and then deny they said it or that it means something else.
Shea,
I don't consider this a "mess". This is just discussion. You have said in the past that you are guided by passion and I accept that. No problem. Would just like clarification.
8:48 AM
Smorgasbord said...
If I may offer my two cents for quick second...
Jack, there is something that you have done within this conversation string that should be avoided in true logical debates: generalization. I have heard you say several times, in fact, that "many on the left" say this or "the left" does that. While I realize you're probably not addressing specific NeoLibs most of the time, I'm sure you can understand where one might take offense.
Any time someone says all X are Y, it's a signal to proceed with caution because it's bound to get the ire up of someone who considers themselves an X...
9:35 AM
SheaNC said...
Jack, here is your clarification: You claim that the word "tribal" is synonymous with "barbarian". It is not. That is bigotry. Tribal societies are not barbaric, nor are they uncivilized. Tribalism is a valid societal structure, no more, no less. Again I say, you are projecting your own predjudices onto my statement. Also, I never, never said that middle eastern people are "incapable" of democracy. You did. My words do not say that, nor do they even imply it. All they do is offer you the opportunity to twist my statements to suit your lie. You are claiming that I said a horrible, bigoted thing that I did not say. You are a liar.
Still, trying to justify you lie, You ask, "Want to stick to the facts, Shea?" Fine. You want the facts, then scroll up the page and read what you wrote and claim that I said. You wrote it, Jack, do you deny it? It's right there (unless you delete it). It's a fact. You said it, and then you claimed that I said it, so your claim a lie. The fact that the statement is bigoted and hateful makes you not only a liar, but a malicious liar as well.
Then you try to save yourself by claiming your misguided inferences are what I said in those quotes. I challenged you to find any quote where I said what you claim. You could not, as I said. You only found quotes that you could use to twist into a totally different statement. If you define a fact as taking something I said and then regurgitating it as something completely different, then you have no clue what a fact is. Your interpretations are not facts, Jack, they're just your interpretations.
Your rebuttal only reinforces my statements; you claim that I said things that I did not say. You take quotes of mine, paste your own bigoted remarks in them in parenthesis, then claim that what you wrote is what I said.
Then you have the nerve to say about me, "I DO want him to be honest." I have been nothing but honest throughout this entire thread, Jack. I would challenge you to prove that I have not, but then you would just offer more of your ridiculous lies.
Again I say to you, Jack, that you should take responsibility for your own statements and infererences, and stop trying to claim that I said things that I did not. Your statements are yours, not mine. You are the one who referred to middle-eastern people as "barbarians who are incapable of democracy," not me. You are the one who is dishonest.
And then, there is this Jack Mercer gem: "Shea, I know you get angry and think that if you swear and deny that validates your argument." That statement is ridiculous. My argument is validated by facts, which I laid out plainly for all to see. I "deny" because you lied about me, and I called you on it; I denied that I said what you claim and I am proven correct. As for the swearing, for you to claim that I swear to validate an argument is just plain stupid. I swear because that is how I talk, especially in response to someone who maliciously lies about me as well.
"I bear no animosity toward Shea." Yeah, right. First you lie about me, and in your lie you imply that I am as bigoted as you, then you try to twist my quoted statements into more bigoted lies, then you make the claim that "many on the left... say something... and then deny they said it or that it means something else.", which is simply parroting my accurate assesment of your behavior in this thread. Then you claim that I am not being honest. You're a real piece of work, Jack.
I stand by my statements (the ones I actually said, not the ones you made up). And I still say your behavior in this thread demonstrates that you are a liar.
9:59 AM
Jack Mercer said...
Smorg,
I understand what you are saying, but the validity of statistical sampling is permissable in logical arguments.
When I make comments, I am not necessarily referring to you, and if the shoe does not fit, then the person need not get offended--A simple, "I do not agree with that personally" is sufficient to set the record straight.
Generalizations are not invalidated by exceptions either, Smorg. Something that is also a scientific concept. We must use generalizations in life or we become confused. For example, we can say "most black people have dark skin", "most of the fish population is in the sea", etc.
When the bulk of people who align themselves with the left in this country identify their leadership as the Kennedy's, Moores, Deans, McDermotts, etc., then those people become spokespersons for that group. Just like Pat Robertson opening his mouth and speaking for the "right" the "left" has its spokespersons who communicate its thought and agenda.
Smorg, here are some generalizations that are largely true about the left: They support gay rights, they support abortion, they support increased environmental controls, etc. Is that saying that all on the left support these? No, but the generalization remains true.
When one accepts a label (liberal/left/conservative/right) then one often bears the burden of association. When I refer to myself as conservative, does that mean that I am what many refer to as conservatives in a contemporary sense? Do I identify with the "Neo Con" philosophy? No, and not necessarily--that is the reason that I articulate my position when the issue is brought up. That is also the reason I don't fit the "conservative" mold that some of you had pre-conceived.
Several posts ago Shea lumped all conservatives into a particular mold and then referred to them as "f***ing conservative hypocrites". I realized this was generalization and went about in the post to clarify or submit what I thought. I was not offended by his generalization, even though the language seemed to indicate offense.
Smorg, I have a great deal of respect for you and know that we can discuss both generalizations and specifics (I commented on your last post to this effect I believe). The key is not to become offended, but to respond to the allegation in a logical and ordered manner, especially if untrue.
I offered backup for my generalization, which if ever requested to do so, I will do my best to provide.
Regards,
-Jack
10:11 AM
Jack Mercer said...
Shea,
No offense, but my conversations with you are reminiscent of some of those I have with my young daughter.
-Jack
10:24 AM
Smorgasbord said...
Wait! How can that not be offensive???
10:54 AM
Jack Mercer said...
Smorg, no matter what I say Shea says that I'm a liar, I don't know what I'm talking about, thats not what he said, etc., etc.
Like conversations with my daughter, when the discussion leaves the rationale I usually give up.
Such as in this case.
-Jack
P.S. I love my daughter--she has a bright mind, and valid opinions, but sometimes no matter what I say the facts are immaterial. I tell her often she needs to look at going to law school.
10:58 AM
Jack Mercer said...
Oh, and if the truth of what I said is offensive, it was not intended. It is simply how I feel.
-Jack
11:00 AM
wolnosc said...
OK, now that everyone had their hissy fit, can we get back to what we do best? Cripes, talk about metros. I thought some of you were on a major rag.
What's the matter? Everyone's feelings hurt?
Hey, how about it? I'm running out of reading material, and work all day just doesn't do it for me.
8:10 AM
Jack Mercer said...
Nah, WSC, this is entertainment! Would you have read this discussion string if it was the same 'ol boring stuff? ha!
-Jack
8:58 AM
wolnosc said...
gotcha on this one,
yes, I glossed over the rants between you and Shea. Let's get back on track. Entertainment? I have two puppies for that, and they're not you and Shea.
9:41 AM
Post a Comment
The conversation was continued on Shea's site: Thank you, Chickenhawk. I am sorry if any of my comments upset the others who contribute to the blog, but I am not sorry if they upset Jack Mercer, nor am I sorry for anything I said to him or the way I said it. I stand by those statements.The fact is, I refuse to tolerate insults from him, and his statement was a deliberate personal insult. He claims not to take things personally, but I suspect he was still bent out of shape from my words against him in a previous post, and he obviously took it personally and decided to do what he did. I won't rehash everything here (much), but the fact is he insulted me and lied about me, and then got upset when I pointed out what he did. It's not the first time he has insulted me - in the past he has been extremely insulting, offensive, and condescending, and if anyone has the time and inclination they can do the research into the Liberal Thought blog's archives and see for themselves.I refuse to tolerate that behavior. I grow weary of his pattern of insulting me, then trying to win me over with obsequious, patronizing compliments, then turning around and stabbing me in the back. That shit gets old, and his empty pandering compliments are just more of his bullshit. At least he has backed off on the blogwhoring.I'm sure he is busily writing something about how offended he was about my use of profanity. It will give no mention whatsoever of how he lied about me, or of his deplorable, bigoted characterization of Iraqi people.I ask you: which is more offensive, his horrible statement and subsequent lie, or me truthfully calling him a fucking liar? I'll take my profanity over his complete lack of integrity any day. As far as I am concerned, the guy is beneath contempt. He is a hypocritical asshole, and a liar.
|
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 3/01/2006 09:46:00 AM |
|
|
|
|
| About Me |
|
Name: Jack Mercer
Home:
About Me:
See my complete profile
"Snipet" (pronounced: snipe - it) is not a word.It is a derivative of two words: "Snipe" and "Snippet".
Miriam Webster defines Snipe as: to aim a carping or snide attack, or: to shoot at exposed individuals (as of an enemy's forces) from a usually concealed point of vantage.
Miriam Webster defines Snippet as: : a small part, piece, or thing; especially : a brief quotable passage.
In short, "Snipets" are brief, snide shots at exposed situations from a concealed vantage point.
WARNING! With due reverence to the Bill of Rights and the First Amendment there is NO comment policy on the News Snipet.
|
| Other things |
| Archives |
|
|
| Politics |
|
| Template by |
|
|
