Page 3 of 3
Posted: Apr 17th 2003, 10:56 am
by fnordboy
Bubba wrote:
I'm not convinced he was attempting to be funny. Look at the rest of his acceptance speech:
< snip >
The rest of the speech is certainly serious. It's true that the Dixie Chicks comment is ridiculous, but I'm not sure Moore sees that (particularly considering the seriousness with which he made the ridiciulous comments about "fictitous times").
That line is so obviously supposed to be funny. The rest of his speech is and was serious and he most likely wanted to end it on a joke that was also a dig at the president. How could you even think that someone would try to use the Dixie Chicks as part or their argument seriously?
How is that funny? Christianity is not monolithic and hasn't been since the Reformation. Shall I count the ways that Catholics and Protestants disagree?
Funny ha ha, not funny strange. And it is about perception not about the validity anyone places on the Pope or his position in the scheme of things. It is about the view of the Pope as a holy figure, and how Bush is a big fan of religion. I will memo Moore and let him know anytime we add a "ha ha" we will spell it out clearer, obviously there are some that can't grasp it.
But the implicit argument of many is that the Pope's opinion on this matter is important. Again, I believe one must explain why the Pope is actually right on this issue if one is going to invoke his name.
I agree, except that what Moore said was a joke, not a serious political commentary(though it was based in one). If you refuse to see it as that then you have to deal with those issues yourself. You are looking for any excuse to jump down his throat. The same argument can be said for the anti-Bush Left, a lot of them look for any excuse to jump down Bush's throat.
Of course Bush gives a lot more ammo than Moore. (and his aren't meant to be jokes)
http://www.toostupidtobepresident.com
Posted: Apr 17th 2003, 6:32 pm
by Bubba
fnordboy wrote:That line is so obviously supposed to be funny. The rest of his speech is and was serious and he most likely wanted to end it on a joke that was also a dig at the president. How could you even think that someone would try to use the Dixie Chicks as part or their argument seriously?
Because this same someone earnestly believes that the 2000 election was fictitious, despite the facts that A) every recount had Bush winning Florida and ergo the electoral college and B) the Constitution dictates that the electoral college is what determines who wins the election.
If Moore doesn't understand the facts about the 2000 election and the United States' system of electing presidents, who's to say that he's bright enough to not invoke the Dixie Chicks in a serious discussion of world events?
The "ficticious election" comment is as absurd as the "Dixie Chicks" comment. I can concede that Moore might have meant the former in earnest and the latter in jest; but how can we tell?
Funny ha ha, not funny strange. And it is about perception not about the validity anyone places on the Pope or his position in the scheme of things. It is about the view of the Pope as a holy figure, and how Bush is a big fan of religion. I will memo Moore and let him know anytime we add a "ha ha" we will spell it out clearer, obviously there are some that can't grasp it.
(Why memo Moore on this? I'm criticizing the comment you yourself made: "It is just funny, how Bush is so outwardly religious in his views and 'job', but doesn't agree with the Pope.")
It seems to me what you're saying is this: that it's "funny" that on the surface two supposedly religious men disagree on an important issue -- never mind how even a cursory examination of the facts reveals that there are legitimate reasons behind the disagreement. I don't find that a particularly witty observation.
It's neither "funny strange"
nor "funny ha ha." It simply betrays a flippancy towards religion on the assumption that religion merits such an attitude. Until/unless you can explain why we should hold religion and the religious in such contempt, I will find the comment to be lacking in both wit and relevence.
Posted: Apr 20th 2003, 6:13 pm
by lance
Bubba wrote:Lance, I agree that one shouldn't take the Pope's word as law; my problem has been that many of the anti-war types have
all of a sudden decided that his opposition to the war in Iraq pretty much settles the issue,
as if his word was law. That strikes me as hypocritical.
Worse, it occasionally seems like a cheap tactic to avoid the nuts and bolts of the argument. A man whose opposition against the war includes the statement, "The Pope is against it," must either stand behind the Pope in all things or explain why the Pope happens to be right in this instance. Many opponents to the war most certainly do not support the Pope all the time, so it's only reasonable to expect/demand a reason we should agree with him now.
Finally, you said, "The President's party can be for the troops, for the war and for cutting funding for Veteran's Administration hospitals in the current budget."
Theoretically, that's true, but if you're going to imply that the Bush White House is
actually proposing budget cuts in the Veterans' Administration, then I would like to see proof.
Consider this:
The 2001 budget for the
Department of Veteran Affairs was 22.4 billion dollars. The 2002 budget was 23.4 billion, an
increase of 1 billion, or 4.46 percent.
The highest inflation rate in that
time period was 3.73% (Jan 01), so the increase even outpaced inflation. I imagine that the rate of growth was smaller than the Clinton projections, but -- and I cannot overemphasize this --
a decrease in the rate of growth is not a budget cut.
I'm not sure what the numbers are for the department in 2003 (and the proposed numbers thereafter), but I'd be willing to bet the budget increases every year, and it probably outpaces inflation, too. Can you provide proof to the contrary?
Bubba,
You are correct that in any political debate each side(s) will invoke what ever figure happens to support their particular point of view at the time, this does not mean however, that they will always be political allies.
Thus occasionally one sees the ACLU and Pat Buchanan on the same side of a particular issue, this of course does not in any way imply that they are on the same page on 90% of the issues.
My accusation was about the GOP, who currently controls Congress, spefically and not Mr. Bush. Since then according the Disabled American Veterans the cuts in Veteran benefits appear to be off the table for now, please see:
http://www.dav.org/news/news_20030325.html
Best,
Lance Man
Posted: Apr 21st 2003, 1:04 am
by Bubba
Even in that article, it's not exactly clear what "drastic cuts in benefits and services for disabled veterans" were being proposed -- or who proposed those cuts. Over the last few years there has been a tendency for decreases in the rate of increases to be called cuts; forgive me for being a doubting Thomas here, but I'm not convinced that cuts in veterans benefits -- actual honest-to-God cuts -- were actually on the table to begin with.
Posted: Apr 21st 2003, 9:47 am
by lance
Bubba wrote:Even in that article, it's not exactly clear what "drastic cuts in benefits and services for disabled veterans" were being proposed -- or who proposed those cuts. Over the last few years there has been a tendency for decreases in the rate of increases to be called cuts; forgive me for being a doubting Thomas here, but I'm not convinced that cuts in veterans benefits -- actual honest-to-God cuts -- were actually on the table to begin with.
Okay your forgiven.
A war, tax cuts, a budget deficet. Money has got to come from somewhere.
Best,
Lance Man
Posted: Apr 22nd 2003, 2:24 am
by Natasha (candygirl)
Thought I'd throw this into the mix:
http://www.revoketheoscar.com
Posted: Apr 24th 2003, 10:07 am
by mglenn
Damnit Jim! Candygirl beat me to it...
But I will throw this in: WSJ OP-ED
http://www.opinionjournal.com/forms/pri ... =110003233
gun stuff
Posted: Apr 24th 2003, 6:50 pm
by lance
For you gun lovers some good news.
Gun Makers soon to get immunity from lawsuits courtesy of H.R. 1036 and
S. 659
For more and who specifically this will affect please see:
http://www.bradycenter.org
Best,
Lance Man
Re: gun stuff
Posted: Apr 25th 2003, 11:09 am
by fnordboy
lance wrote:For you gun lovers some good news.
Gun Makers soon to get immunity from lawsuits courtesy of H.R. 1036 and
S. 659
For more and who specifically this will affect please see:
http://www.bradycenter.org
Best,
Lance Man
Now once this can be granted to cigarette makers and fast food joints I will be happy.