Comments Posted By busboy33
Displaying 31 To 40 Of 657 Comments
SCOTT BROWN BITES THE HEADS OFF LITTLE CHILDREN AND DRINKS THEIR BLOOD
@John:
No. You are wrong. Who in the comments has said that the attack ad is acceptable or justified, or that in comparison to the GOP its a good thing?
Saying that GOP attack ads are equally offensive is not even remotely the same thing as saying that they are worse, or that Blue attack ads are somehow justified/authorized/appropriate because of them.
This is going to suprise you apparently, but thinking lying and attack ads are bad for some people means that you can't ignore lying ("nobody has ever interfered with a patients EC options") and attack ads ("Coakley insists on raising your taxes") just because you like the team doing it. There's a word for that -- hypocrite.
Rick's referring to the "yeabut" defense: "yeah I did it but I'm justified cuz you're a poopy head". That's a stupid argument, and one that nobody here is making. But he (and you) are using an equally stupid argument -- "nobacksies". If I complain that you punched me, and you point out that I punched you too, I can't claim "well I accused you first so no backsies" without sounding like a 5 year old (thumb sucking optional).
In fact, Rick took it to another level with his "pre-emptive no backsies" clause:
"Bob punched me in the face! Disgusting! Now watch him try and weasel out of it like a morally bankrupt pedophile by saying I hit him too . . . just like Hitler would do!"
"Well, you DID hit me. Not defending what I did, but you did hit me."
"You see? Just like Hitler!".Haven't seen a liberal in these comments defend or excuse the Dems for this ad. Why haven't I seen a conservative man up and do the same?
@Rick:
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 17.01.2010 @ 14:59
Kudos on being quick with the correction to the OP. I'm suprised you got from "I assumed people would follow rules they morally disagreed with" to "choke on this fact you idiots". Heck, I'm suprised you started at "why wouldn't people follow rules the disagreed with" in the first place. Respectfully, that's shockingly naive for someone who has little trouble spotting the failings of others.
Regardless, it was a mature thing to do to correct it at all. Well done.
As Rick is shocked at transparently misleading campaign ads (btw Rick . . . . there's no tooth fairy either), I can't wait to read his post decrying the misquoted GOP attack ad against Coakley -- made by the same crew that produced the Willie Horton ads.
http://www.factcheck.org/2010/01/bay-state-battle/
I will say Rick, it is inspiring to see somebody look past their partisan beliefs, to not simply single out their "opponents" while turning a blind eye upon their own house. Truly inspirational. I'd tell you I'm holding my breath to read it, but I'm sure you want to get it juuuuust right . . . and the playoffs are tomorrow . . . so I don't want you to feel any pressure.
p.s.: You might consider "updating" the OP with that little nugget that med providers denying access to patients isn't as untrue as your in-depth research initially led you to believe. Since you're so grounded in that "reality-based community", I'm sure you're a little embarassed about it. Just a suggestion.
The only reason I wrote anything about this ad was its egregious and blatant lying about Brown voting for a measure that turned rape victims away from hospitals. That is beyond lying and the fact that you can't see that only proves my initial point. I have done the same plenty of times, highlighting the lies of Rush, Beck, et al. The difference between you and me is that I call out my side for their sins while you ignore the ones - or try to excuse them - on your side
As for the rest - be patient little donkey. I work for a living and just now got back to my site.
ed.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 17.01.2010 @ 07:25
@Jamie:
What Rick meant was that there SHOULDN'T be any recorded examples. If medical providers have an ethical problem, they'd have to be utter morons to not remove themsleves for such an incredibly explosive and dangerous situation. Not wanting to be involved in these situations is one thing, but actively fu@king with a sexual assult victim under such horrendus circumstances is at best insanity, at worst unbelievably cruel.
Since there shouldn't be any examples of monsters like that, then there must not be. So anything that came up when I searched for Boyer must be a librul plot. Worth noting that the first "non-ad" link that came up was for MSNBC. Coincidence? I think NOT!
btwm I'd say "thanks" for the search as I like learning new things . . . but I could have happily gone the rest of my days with not knowing all that. If I just assume people will be jackasses, I can allow for things like that being true, without having to verify the details.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 16.01.2010 @ 22:08
"That’s because some mouth breathing, thumb sucking liberal will come back and throw up the equivalency thing in your face. Never mind that it takes someone with the mind of a 5 year old to essentially say, 'Yeah, well yous guys does it too - and worse!' No matter. What counts is that nothing Democrats ever do is worse than any one thing a Republican has done."
Cutting that out, and taping it to my quote wall. Something tells me it will come in handy some remote day in the future . . .
on topic -- yep. Attack ad is horrendous and repugnant. The sky is blue, politicians lie and lie more outrageously the closer they get to election, and ice is colder than fire.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 16.01.2010 @ 17:21
REPORTS ON THE DEATH OF CULTURE 11 HAVE BEEN GREATLY EXAGGERATED
Fair enough. I quibble over the equality between the "Supreme Creator" of Cicero and the "Supreme Creator" of Christianity . . . but its a quibble and essentially irrevelant.
And the recorded history of ideas is factual -- that one specifically developed from another precedent may not be provable unless explicitly cited, so again fair enough.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 16.01.2010 @ 17:28
@manning:
"The origin of morality, however, is a very murky 'fact' since no one has recorded its beginnings and its evolution adequately. It is merely a theory."
. . . jumping in to be a pedantic jerk . . .
If its a theory, then its more than a "guess" which is how you seem to be using it here. Personally, I don't think you can use "theory" with matters of faith, since a theory requires verifiable testing and faith-based arguments by definition can't be tested (I'm not saying they aren't valid or correct . . . just that you can't test them).
Also, how do the writings of Cicero (a non-Christian who died before the birth of Jesus) lead to Christianity? Are you saying that Cicero actually declares two of the Christian Commandments?
Respectfully, I think you may be reading his work with an interpretative eye. If you are looking for an affirmation and exhultation of Christian dogma, you can imply it . . . but if you read it as the work of a polytheist philosopher the first thought you come up with isn't "wow -- Cicero truly believes in the saving grace of Jesus of Nazareth!"There are many aspects of Christianity that are similar to pretty much ALL theologies and moral structures. What theology doesn't have some version of "respect your fellow man"? That such an idea is present in Christianity doesn't make it a Christian concept, but a moral/ethical concept. The Christ is what makes Christianity unique (without him, you're Jewish), and there isn't anything in Cicero that I can think of that supports/endorses the concept of kristos. Been a while since I read him, but I'm fairly sure about that.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 16.01.2010 @ 06:32
WHY CONSERVATISM IS DISCONNECTED FROM REALITY
@Frank (#5):
"1. Government cannot be as efficient as free markets."
I'm going back and forth with whether I agree with that statement, and my main concern is with what the word "efficient" means. It is an extremely emotionally laden word -- who isn't for efficiency? Who supports inefficiency?
Pretty much by definition, any rules create inefficiency when compared to no rules in a micro sense. For example, EPA regulations limit and hamstring industry, forcing them to do what they do in a less-than-optimal (optimal for the industry)manner. So I guess its a fair statement.
But from a macro perspective, the hamstringing of industry can create more efficiency than it destroys. As the OP pointed out, 50 sets (or more) of semi-local regulations would be far more complicated. No regulations at all and trying to fix any problems or issues after-the-fact would be a complex inefficient hassle for the nation. In that sense what is efficient for industry and the free market is not efficient for the country. Selling the Corvair knowing it would kill people was more efficient for business, but less efficient for America (deaths, lawsuits, etc.)As you pointed out in your second point, government can have negative consequences, forseen and unforseen. But the same logic seems to apply equally to free markets as well -- Enron and credit default swaps as examples.
I agree with the logic of the statements . . . but I'm not sure how they get me to the Conservative conclusion.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 12.01.2010 @ 22:36
OF AX GRINDING AND SCORE SETTLING
@Sshiell:
No, I read just fine. Your earlier quote completely and utterly ignored my question. You welcome condemnation from what you describe as the "archtypical representative of the black race". I asked if you held the same views of other races. You repeated yourself.
That in no way answers whether or not you hold the same attitude about other races. That in no way explains any differences in your attitude toward dofferent races.
Perhaps you might want to look into that reading comprehension thing you mentioned. I hear it does wonders for actually making a coherent point. Of course, if you just want to be a jackass, don't worry about it -- you appear to have that aced.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 12.01.2010 @ 10:16
@SShiell:
"You want respect - grow a pair and earn it!"
Does that apply to all races, or just blacks? Do you think whites should grow a pair and earn some respect from you as well? If you do respect whites . . . what have they done as a race that blacks haven't?
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 12.01.2010 @ 08:10
@ray c:
"rick - your dislike (hatred?) of christianity is showing again. every time you criticize sarah palin. it’s obvious."
Please explain. I'm missing how saying Palin is apparently woefully ignorant to be a candidate for high office is an attack on any religion. Did Rick even mention her religion or religious beliefs at all? I didn't see it.
Did I miss something that was being implied, something "between the lines"? Or Does Palin actually embody the Christian faith, so a critique of her is a de facto attack on baby Jesus?
(hint: if the answer is #2, you're going to get laughed at)
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 12.01.2010 @ 05:21
