Achebe, Are you SERIOUS? Repeat things like this enough and MAYBE everyone will think that conservatives are just like you stereotype them... Nice....
Did I say terroriist or suspected terrorist? Hey, ARlington Road was a movie.... what's your point? You said terrorist. However, given that you support the stripping of civil liberties to suspected terrorists, you apparently want to go after them too. Some of the incidents referred to in that movie, I believe, are real incidents where the FBI's flagging systems made them suspect people who had done nothing wrong. Okay, let's start with the illegal aliens. That should get most of them. What's the point of having legal immigration, if we are going to ignore illegal immigration. I agree with this. Here, you have proof that people did and are doing some illegal. My problem is when the Justice Dept gives themselves the power to start detaining people that have done nothing wrong because we suspect they might have but are not willing to offer any proof.
Achebe, You so funny. Did you know that FAIR produced a ~80 page magazine last year devoted just to showing conservative/corporate bias in the media last year? I read it and it was interesting...of course I don't have it so cannot speak to what was in it. Anyway...I provide the following introduction: Hi, my name is rimmy. I am a cultural/educational revolutionary. Most national news that I encounter comes nowhere close to my perspective. It makes me cry. Even when they try to "reach out" to the pinko-leftie revolutionaries like me, they generally pick some supermarket tabloid level guest/coverage, etc. that only makes him/her/it self look foolish. It makes me cry. When the NYT runs an article that has been taken from a London paper and censors 85% of it, it makes me cry. When "news" stories are mostly about all the great products being developed and sold for really high prices, I cry. When Goldberg writes a book talking about the liberal media and uses pandering to corporations as examples, it makes me cry. Or is it laugh? Not sure. In a competition of pure acidic posting, who would win: Achebe or BK?
Tough call, but I think, ultimately, you're comparing apples and oranges. Achebe is biting and acidic, but he can be fairly impersonal. I would call his style "acerbic." Brian, while equally acidic, seems to strike out at particular posters. Therefore, I would label his style as "venomous." But both are highly intelligent and sharp-tongued -- fun to watch, but bad to be on the reciving end.
Bummer. I'm gone for what seems, in the course of this thread, to be a lot of hours. I find around ten new posts and nothing to respond to. I gotta tell you it's a disappointment. Maybe this thread is over. Or maybe that's just my solipcism -- believing that since I have nothing more to say it's over. Man, where's tbagain when you need him? Anyway. If it IS over, meet me over at the Tamalalia thread where we can argue about whether or not me posting about my theater company's show is spam, as Ninja's suggested. But that's not all... You can also follow Mrs. JB's clues to see the true, UGLY face of liberalism. See you there? Oh, man. I really hope so...
A lot of this debate seems to ignore home grown terrorists. Obviously McVay is the easiet choice, so why don't we suspend the rights of people who fit the profile of rural white guys who are kicked out of the army and/or affliate with anti-government groups. What about the Columbine killers? Let's suspend the rights of alienated white kids who attend gun shows and who spout far-right and racists ideas. What about the doctor intimidators & murderers with organizational ties? Let's suspend the rights of people involved in right to life marches who in any way or form have informal or formal affiliations with anti-abortion groups with "violent leaning" rhetoric. All of these people and events depicted have had fairly profound social effects on society, even if the death and fincancial toll doesn't rival 9-11. But I would add to make a huge moral or social distinction between the OKC bombing and 9-11 I think does a disservice to those effected in OKC. My point is not that we should suspend rights to foreign born Islamic Arabs, white guys kicked out of the military, people who affiliate with anti-government groups, alienated white kids who go to gun shows, anti-abortion protestors, etc., etc. My point is to show it becomes a slippery slope when fundamental rights are withheld to any sub-groups of persons based only on profiles that others similar them in some political or ethnic form have committed organized/planned crimes, instead of probable cause. Extra attention and legal survelliance of some of these groups/people--I don't have a problem with (let us start by better tracking weapons and potential bomb material purchases nationally)--but not suspending basic rights based on the latest crime a member of one group has comitted.
Desert Scar, I agree 100%. If we wanted to have a police state, we could. It would be fairly safe, and very clean. We wouldn't have the same rights or freedoms we do now, but it seems that's no longer as important to some people as being safe.
sorry, grummett beat me to it. previous post done hurriedly before having a chance to read through entire thread. But let me just say this: MY BAD! Go Rockets woohooo yeah!!!
The national media leans left on social issues, but they know which side their corporate bread is buttered on.
