Here you go giddy, pundit p*rn, packed with poll-pandering people parts and partisan pumping. (you'll have to replace the asterisks in the URL)
Not at all. The same goes for YOU. Nobody should speak against you, period. There is no reason for it. But people can if they want, and they do have the right to argue with your POSITIONS. Why would you speak against the widows? I understand speaking against their political issues if you want, but you don't know them. They haven't lied to us, they haven't done anything to you. They merely hold positions you don't agree with. There is no reason to speak against them. Do you understand the distinction between speaking against the widows themselves, and speaking against their political leanings?
You are wrong about history and homosexuality being accepted. Deckard already pointed out that it was accepted in some of the greatest civilizations in history. Furthermore you are wrong about gays only being denied in one aspect of society(as if that would make it ok.) The fact is they are not allowed to openly serve in our nation's military, they are beaten, attacked, threatened, laughed at, etc. You have some very strong opinions, which is a good thing. However, forming them based on incorrect information isn't.
Even if they use their tragic circumstance to propel their message? It's not about their message per se, it's about the promotion of it by others really.
That tragic circumstance is part of their lives. It affected them personally. They can reference that without fear of it being seen as a negative I would think. Do you remember the Bush advertisement where he used the little girl who had lost a parent in the 9/11 attacks? The ad featured that little girl walking around, and Bush used it to get elected. The fact that they say the experiences of their personal lives and makes them have a different and more up close rationale for supporting the causes they do, in no way means they "Enjoyed their husbands deaths." It in no way means they are witches, or harpies. They weren't activists until years after the incident, and they saw that nothing was being done to address the problems that cost them the lives of their loved ones. Their husbands died, their is no reason why they should have to remain silent about that when speaking about issues directly related to it. Giddy, you claim bj's interpretation of Coulters comments that the widows are enjoying the death of their husbands was incorrect. Please tell us what you think it means when Coulter claims that widows are enjoying the deaths of their husbands means.
See #2 which is a much more plain use of the word... en·joy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-joi) v. en·joyed, en·joy·ing, en·joys v. tr. 1. To receive pleasure or satisfaction from. 2. To have the use or benefit of: enjoys good health It seems like all definition #1 is what the critics are sticking to.
With Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff For the story behind the story... Friday, June 9, 2006 11:47 a.m. EDT Mary Matalin: Lefties Worse Than Ann Coulter Former White House advisor Mary Matalin offered a partial defense for firebrand conservative author Ann Coulter on Friday, saying her comments about four Bush-bashing 9/11 widows weren't as bad as some of the things liberals say about Republicans. "People run around calling [Republicans] extra-chromosome and Hitlers and Nazis," Matalin told radio host Don Imus. "And nobody says anything." "She calls someone a harpie and you'd think that the whole world's on fire," Matalin complained. In her new book Coulter said that four 9/11 widows known as the Jersey Girls seemed to be "enjoying" the deaths of their husbands, adding, "how do we know their husbands weren't planning to divorce these harpies?" Matalin said that she agreed with Coulter's "larger point that in the absence of not being able to make persuasive arguments [the left] rolls out messengers that it's politically incorrect to argue with." The Bush-Cheney insider did admit that she finds Coulter's "verbiage a little stressful." But when Imus countered, "I'm surprised that you won't condemn her for these repugnant comments," Matalin responded: "I don't know her. I haven't read the book." IMUS: You know what Hitler did. Did you know him? You could condemn what he did. MATALIN: You're comparing [Coulter] to Hitler? See, this is the point she's making.
yeah, only the left does that. give me a break. politics in america suck. it's just constant gamesmanship with little concern from either side about common good.
I don't really disagree with you but you do have to wonder about the string of Democratic cases which are thrust at us. I don't even know who the lady in the picture is or what she represents but I do know about the 9/11 widows, Max Cleland, John Kerry War-hero, John Murtha, Patty Sheehan et al. Here comes Nick Berg's father... I once made a list of these Democratic icons who were supposed to be above the criticism because of their suffering. It was a stout list. The Republican like endeavors are few and pitiful in comparison.
This is laughable. It is a made up situation. John kerry most certainly has been widely criticized. Nobody is saying that people or at least their positions can't be criticized. I have yet to see one evidence of that being true. I have asked but neither you nor Burznomar have provided me of a case in which people haven't been allowed to criticize the war widows positions. Everyone on your list has been roundly criticized, and many of them personally and falsely accused of things. So to pretend like there is something or some group that keeps anyone from criticizing these people or their positions is just false. Did anyone prevent Ann Coulter from printing her vile personal attacks? No, and she has been all over the TV since making them. She wasn't prevented nor was anyone else prevented from attacking the widows, their positions, or anyone else on the list you gave. It is a case Mary Matlin, Ann Coulter, and others are whining, crying, and moaning over a problem that doesn't exist.
Serious question for giddyup, Nomar and gwayneco: Which recommendations of the 9/11 commission do you think we should not act upon?
Not all [people] are created equal though, are they? I'm in favor of equity when the lack of it hurts people, but I think there's too much of a focus on blanket equality. It goes against basic evolution. I don't know think I should derail this thread so I'm gonna just drop this line of discussion. Maybe another time.
I don't have as much information as the decision makers in charge. I also don't have the leadership experience that they do. I trust decisions like those to the elected officials, which is the point of a democracy.
Why can't I argue against somebody's positions as well speak out against the person too? I think Michael Moore's positions are inane and untruthful. I also think the man himself is scum.
Wow. This is horrible. In other words, you don't have an opinion about anything except that you agree with whatever the president says and does, no matter who is president, always. And that "is the point of a democracy." (Not to mention, anyone that disagrees with the president deserves whatever they get.) That is messed up, dude.
