Comments Posted By busboy33
Displaying 501 To 510 Of 657 Comments
McCAIN'S DISAVOWAL OF HAGEE A GOOD SIGN
@syn:
It wasn't the Catholic bashing that sent McCain over the edge -- it was the sermon interpreting Jeremiah 16:15 that recently got splashed across the InterTubes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErC1IJeHnyc
It's just an audio, and I suppose it theoretically have been faked, but that sure sounds like Hagee, and as far as I know he hasn't repudiated it.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 23.05.2008 @ 12:00
I'm all for letting people interpret the Bible their own way, but "Hitler was God's agent sent to help the Jews" is tough to be standing next to on the podium during an election year.
IRAN'S PROXY WAR AGAINST THE UNITED STATES IN LEBANON
Assuming the Iranian influence in Lebanon is as you describe, the question now becomes does the Admin engage the situation there or uses it as a casus belli for a direct Iranian attack. I suppose there is always the third option of twiddling their thumbs, but I pray they aren't that foolish.
Or foolish enough to attack Iran. No - there are measures we can take to bolster Siniora far short of war. There are risks - but depending on what we do, they are manageable.
ed.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 18.05.2008 @ 06:50
ONLY A REPUBLICAN COULD BE SO STUPID...
@musculus:
Thank you for the clarification in your last comment. I'm more than willing to continue the discussion either in the thread or otherwise (bus33boy@yahoo.com for e-mail).You say you are tired of all the "race-this" and "race-that" . . . a point to which I heartily agree. The issue of hyper-race-sensitivity however does not make racially charged remarks less so. As was pointed out by MikeDevx in comment 64, there is a 4 year difference in age between the two parties, both in their forties. I'm currently 37, and I would consider myself a peer to someone who was 41. I would have a great deal of difficulty in accepting them labeling me as "boy" or "young'un" without presuming that there was a large element of dismissiveness and condesension to the term. Throw in the racial element (I'm white, btw), and it's hard not to see the comment as derogatory.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 18.04.2008 @ 10:27
Was it a casual slip-of-the-tounge? Possibly -- but a damn foolish one for a public figure. Part of his job is to be careful in his language unfortunately, and he failed utterly in this instance.
@martin.musculus :
"Obama broke on the scene claiming to be “transending racial politics”, so just as the: “No Morality Left” claims that conserv. must be held to a higher standard because we claim “family values”, so to must the stinking pile of contradictions Mr B.O. be held to a higher standard."
Not sure I follow the logic here -- holding Obama to the term of 'transcending racial politics', how did he fail to do so with the 'bitter' comment?
Also, you might note I'm not defending his statement or endorsing him. I don't particularly care for him, although I dislike him less than I do Hilary. What I'm asking is why one bad comment provokes such seething passion, while another draws not only indifference but passionate defense? I have to agree with Rick's update to the original post -- "boy" has been racially charged for decades now in terms of white-speaking-to-black, and the posters here who claim to be suprised at that are either insane, ignorant or dishonest. You mentioned your wife calling herself a "stupid gook". I hope you have enough gentleman in you to beat me senseless if I told you your wife seemed like a nice lady for a stupid gook. Or if YOUR ELECTED OFFICIAL saw her at a rally and told the audience "I'm so inclusive I've got the gooks supporting me now!" The difference in the scenarios should be apparent.
For those pointing out 'boy' can be used white-to-white in Southern society . . . true. "N***er" can be used black-to-black. It is considered racially offensive to use it white-to black. Hope that isn't a newsflash, or another example of the wildly changing standards of the histerical left.
p.s. -- "Mommasita" . . . presuming the speaker was a white make talking to/about a Hispanic female, also pretty friggin' racially charged.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 16.04.2008 @ 21:40
"Davis’ comment was, at worst, a single word slip-up because he is a) a southerner who speaks that way about everyone and b) obviously not aware of the latest verboten terms."
b) first -- as Rick pointed out, the racial connotations of the term "boy" as applied to black-vs-white Americans are not some new trend, and if Davis was unaware that they term was loaded with racial implications then he is stunningly out-of-touch with American society, not some new-fangled, recent "fad".
a and b) -- why, when Davis makes an inflammatory remark, are the only possible explanations innocent, whereas when Obama makes an inflammatory remark, the only possible explanations are offensive? "At worst", he uses the term in regards to everybody. No, "at worst" he's a bigot who showed his face. I'm not saying that he is (I agree it was probably the southern slang slipping out), but clearly that's the worst possible explanation. The possibility that he might harbor racial animosity is absolutely unthinkable? Not even a possibility? Davis must use the term for everybody, black and white, and use it with the same race-neutral emphasis . . . that's alot of assuming without any evidence.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 14.04.2008 @ 17:39
Drewsmom:
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 12.04.2008 @ 12:35
Thank you, and as you are entitled to yours.
SShiell:
"You are right. I forgot about the “Thou shalt not Litter” section. My Bad!"
So the thought of torturing or advocating shooting completely innocent people, rather than give you even the slightest pause, compels you to make a joke? Am I reading that wrong? Kill the ba$tards becuase they're murderers, and if they're not then murder them anyway because . . . hell, I guess no reason really. I just likes me sum killin!
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 12.04.2008 @ 00:36
You live your life the way you want to, and believe what you want to, but I have to tell you that's pretty disgusting.
SSchell and Mark:
Art. 4 of the GC requires that all captured persons during wartime be given a hearing before a compentent tribunal to determine their classification. Until they ARE given that hearing, they are required to be treated as POWs.
And again, you've already assumed that everybody "captured" is pulled off the battlefield guns blazing. The vast majorities of prisoners at Gitmo have been either not linked to terrorism in any credible way or have actually been demonstrated to be innocent.
Posted this link before, to the documentation of the classification hearings
http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/detainees/csrt/index.htmlIf they are not sabotuers, then just pumping lead into them is illegal, war or no, GC or no.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 11.04.2008 @ 18:31
Drewsmom:
"Just consider what is being done to us, slow sawing off of heads, can you even imagine the pain, and they think NOTHING of doing this."
So Enhanced Interrogation isn't torture, because terrorists do worse things? Pointing out how evil the terrorists are sounds like a justification to hurt them back. Does torture become not-torture if the subject is reeeeeeealy bad?
And yet again, they are NOT known terrorists for the most part. The vast majority are NOT members of AQ, NOT sawing off heads, NOT shooting at out boys, NOT guilty.
http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/WCC/bruns.htm
Data from a war crimes trial of nazis who used Enhanced Interrogation -- that's actually the term they used. The Allies shot them for commiting torture. They actually banned waterboarding and extreme cold as being even beyond their acceptable range. Their defenses were it wasn't that severe, we were ordered to do it, we even had doctors present to make sure the prisoners were safe (why does this all sound so familiar?), we didn't use it on everybody, just the real high value targets, our government lawyers said it was acceptable . . .
. . . and we shot them for it.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 11.04.2008 @ 08:11
@ Scrapiron:
"The Geneva convention was never violated, as a fact if we followed it we would have no prisoners. All of them would have been tried on the battlefield and shot. That would be IAW international law."
That's one of the silliest things I've seen posted on this topic, on any board. I'd love to know what part of the GC says shoot people you didn't capture fighting. Back this nonsensical phallus-waving up please.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 11.04.2008 @ 01:51
