|response to demand for appology to OES||Live Steam|
Dec 22, 2003 7:56 AM
|I was concerned that maybe I had gone over the top after reading a few responses to the posts below, so I re-read the thread and my posts in particular. The main point of my posts was that making un-proven, false, misleading, blanketed statements about the President and US involvement in Iraq for political gain is dangerous to the safety of the men and women fighting on foreign shores and to our national security. I was also giving my opinion of why France, Germany, Russia and China abstained from getting involved. I stand by my assertions. Yes I think it is wrong and dangerous for politicos either looking to gain the office of the President, those helping them do so and anyone here to make these outlandish statements. Madam Albright made a statement in front of a political analyst and others, that was in a public forum. I think it was irresponsible and dangerous. Additionally if Ed is offended by being called un-American, why would he in the same sentence accuse me of it and also call into question my human compassion? That I find to be offensive, but I took it in the spirit of the "debate" and not as a personal attack.
However, I still was worried that my response was too disrespectful in tone. I knew I would be seeing two people who I both admire and respect at a party this weekend - my Father and my Uncle (my mother's brother). They, according to OES, would eminently qualify to discern whether or not my comments were wrong, based on their life experiences. You see they both served in WW2. My Father was granted permission to finish dental school before he was to report to active duty. He did so performing general dentistry and structural repairs to soldiers injured on European front. He was stationed in England and never saw live combat. He finished his service after the conclusion of the war as a full Captain.
My Uncle was planning on being the first in our family to graduate college, but on his 17th birthday he dragged my Grandparents down to the enlistment office and had them sign him into the navy. He shipped out to the Pacific and was actively engaged in combat with the Japanese fleet. He later returned home to enroll in college under the GI bill and eventually became a Sr. VP of Chase Manhattan performing international auditing investigations of bank fraud.
I knew what my Father's response would be base on his politics, but was unsure about my Uncle. My Father, because of the life he lived and obstacles he overcame such as the Depression, would agree that no one should make unsubstantiated claims against the US in a public forum no matter how they felt about the President. He believes as I do, that it weakens us in the eyes of the world. They don't appreciate the spirit of our freedom of speech. The words can and are used out of context in foreign publications to incite and/or support anti-American hatred.
My Uncle I was less sure of. I don't really know his politics and still don't even though we had an extended discussion about it this weekend. He held his cards pretty close to the vest. However his did relay one anecdotal story he felt applied here. You see he worked in the main offices for Chase in lower Manhattan. Each morning he walked from the Staten Island Ferry to his office. This brought him past the enlistment office at Federal Hall, where each day he would be confronted by protestors of the Vietnam War. There he said, he would be offended by the slurs aimed at the President and our country. His actual response to me was " I never baited them (the protestors) with my service to this country. That service was performed out of a sense of duty, not out of a sense of requirement. It was my choice, but I would never use it to say I am more American than someone else because of it. They as I did, had the right to free speech. I could, as they could, make of that speech what I thought of it - that it was wrong, u
|re: response to demand for appology to OES - contd.||Live Steam|
Dec 22, 2003 8:03 AM
|My Uncle I was less sure of. I don't really know his politics and still don't even though we had an extended discussion about it this weekend. He held his cards pretty close to the vest. However his did relay one anecdotal story he felt applied here. You see he worked in the main offices for Chase in lower Manhattan. Each morning he walked from the Staten Island Ferry to his office. This brought him past the enlistment office at Federal Hall, where each day he would be confronted by protestors of the Vietnam War. There he said, he would be offended by the slurs aimed at the President and our country. His actual response to me was " I never baited them (the protestors) with my service to this country. That service was performed out of a sense of duty, not out of a sense of requirement. It was my choice, but I would never use it to say I am more American than someone else because of it. They as I did, had the right to free speech. I could, as the could, make of that speech what I thought of it - that it was wrong, unpatriotic and detrimental to the men serving this country at the time."
So you can all make of that what you will. I stand by what I was saying the debate below - irresponsible, unproven, unsubstantiated, and inflammatory statements are dangerous to the welfare of this country especially in a time of war and in a time in history where the spoken and printed word can reach around the globe in mere seconds.
|good post and spot on (nm)||bill105|
Dec 22, 2003 8:12 AM
|Close to the vest||53T|
Dec 22, 2003 8:05 AM
|I can tell you don't get to be SVP at Chase, or anywhere else, by letting everyone know your political opinions, or your religious convictions, or your sexual preferences.
And people wonder why I post anonymously.
|re: response to demand for appology to OES||rufus|
Dec 22, 2003 8:41 AM
|was that making un-proven, false, misleading, blanketed statements about the President and US involvement in Iraq for political gain is dangerous to the safety of the men and women fighting on foreign shores and to our national security
as opposed to the president and his staff making similar statements in order to justify going to war in the first place.
|If they are ever proven to be such, I will ...||Live Steam|
Dec 22, 2003 9:07 AM
|hold them to the same standard. Until then it's false and misleading innuendo at best otherwise it could and in some cases should be treated as dangerous sedition.|
|here, read THIS:||dr hoo|
Dec 22, 2003 9:08 AM
|"Now tell us did you get drafted or was it a voluntary enlistment? If you were drafted you did what the law required of you. No more no less. "
Wasn't York drafted? Did he do "what was required, no more no less"? Read history, or watch the movie, then get back to me.
I find this statement to be one of the most offensive things YOU have said. It does NOT show respect to THOUSANDS of American soldiers, sailors, marines and fliers who have gone above and beyond the call of duty... even though they were DRAFTED.
It also ignores the fact that many volunteers serve poorly, disgracing the uniform.
Last time I looked they didn't check draft status when handing out medals. They look at what people DO. SERVICE is ACTION.
|Of course you miss the point||Live Steam|
Dec 22, 2003 9:16 AM
|My point wasn't to denigrate the service of a draftee. I was simply pointing out that as such, a draftee is simply doing what the law required. No complying is a crime. I do not hold draftees, such as my father, with any less regard than a volunteer. Does that make it simple enough for you to understand? Your other points are superfluous and need no response.
I guess the point my uncle made went over your head. His point was that service in the military does not make that person more American than the next which is what Ed implied and what I take offense at!
|Of course YOU miss the point.||dr hoo|
Dec 22, 2003 9:29 AM
|I spoke ONLY to the SINGLE point of draftee vs. volunteer.
Your statement craps all over the service of draftees. It specifically craps on the service of OES, IF HE WAS DRAFTED. You may not have intended it, but that's how it reads. That is not the statement of someone who respects those in uniform, and the sacrafices they have made and will make.
I really don't give a darn about what your "uncle" may have said or not said. Frankly, I doubt you relayed an accurate description of the thread. Given your tendency to misinterpret/spin/get things blatently wrong on this board, I can only assume you did the same in this case. Unless you printed the thread, or signed on and let them read it that is. But that would be the act of someone concerned with accuracy, which you are not.
|Show me where I did such||Live Steam|
Dec 22, 2003 9:43 AM
|They both read the threads on a computer in the home where the party was - another relatives house. I just pointed them in the direction of it and let them click around. They read other threads too thought it was,lets say "interesting how much productive time could be wasted on Internet chat boards". I informed them it was a forum and not chat, but that didn't seem to matter.
If yoy are calling me a liar, please ay so without all the BS. Be a man and not an a$$.
|Sure, right after I describe a sunset to a blind man.||dr hoo|
Dec 22, 2003 9:49 AM
|I don't think you are a liar. I think you believe everything you type.|
|HEHEHE - spot on indeed - nm||MJ|
Dec 22, 2003 9:52 AM
|Good god, this IS the harbinger of the apocalypse....||sn69|
Dec 22, 2003 9:32 AM
|I'm finding myself in whole-hearted agreement with Hoo AND I'm doling-out home repair advice. What next? Am I going to get a sudden urge to buy one of those POS Cannondale beer cans?!?!?! (Again?)
In any case, "Service is action" is one of the finer statements made to date on this board with regards to the military. Draft/volunteerism alone do not define the value or worth of one's service. I have lots of young enlistees working for me who did it simply to escape the economic hell of their childhood. On the surface, that seems awefully selfish, yet I rarely see them perform anything less than brilliantly. Their dedication to their shipmates is inspiring. It doesn't matter any more if Ed got drafted or volunteered. The fact is he served during a horrid, brutal war that resulted in a level of treatment of the vets that should shame us all. Good on ya, Ed, and god (whichever you choose) bless you.
The corollary to all that is that some people, a very few indeed, serve with little or no action of worth. I've looked into the eyes of a jet-engine mech (what we call an AD) who just got busted for crystal meth. No amount of past good deeds can make up for that degree of selfish, criminal negligence, IMHO. Oh wait, I'm off on a tangental ramble YET AGAIN (more java por favor). The point is that this is a complex issue. I personally find the same degree of disgust in running abroad on the context of higher education as I do in one's rich, powerful father "buying" you a slot in a non-combat Air National Guard unit. (For the record, only one F-102/6 unit deployed to Vietnam, flying B-52 escort...and it wasn't his.)
Thus, we come back to Hoo's point. One must consider what people do when assigning value. Actions define us, good or bad. I'd rather that we avoid labeling "good American"/"bad American" on the basis of purely subjective inpterpretations here. This board, while heated at times, is nonetheless a good example of the marketplace that Holmes so eloquently spoke about. ...And, lest we start defending only our politicians of choice, I'd challenge all of us to take a hard look at the comments we've made about presidents and legislators we don't like.
In the meantime, let's save the "Un-American" label for those like Randy Weaver, the Montana Militia, the Klan, etc....
|Forgot one thing||sn69|
Dec 22, 2003 9:35 AM
|I'm NOT laying out a challenge, Steam, but, just so'z'ya'know, the Reserves (you choose the branch) will still hire you at 45. Officer or enlisted. For that matter, so will the Guard and Air Guard.|
|And even older if you have "prior service" time (nm)||eyebob|
Dec 22, 2003 11:37 AM
|Hell, we've got a 53-yr-old E5 SelRes at my command.||sn69|
Dec 22, 2003 11:39 AM
|She's been in about 5 years.|
|Yup, good friend of mine signed up last year||eyebob|
Dec 22, 2003 11:51 AM
|when I did. Only he made the poor decision of going into the Navy Reserves. I told him that the Army was the way to go, but did he listen? No. So now he "drills" in San Diego and gets to consult with the Navy's LASIK program.....Okay, so I'm jealous. Oh, and by-the-way, he's 51.
|Yup, good friend of mine signed up last year||sn69|
Dec 22, 2003 12:23 PM
|Navy Reserves? I represent that remark, Doc!
I'm what you doggies call and AGR, I believe. We used to call them TARs in the Navy--Training and Administration of the Reserves--the active duty pogues who run the show during the week. Now, however, we're called FTS--Full Time Support. I'm sure that name change idea earned somebody a Navy Commendation Medal somewhere inside the Beltway.
The LASIK thing is new to my group. Being a pilot, we still regard that with Shaman-esque skepticism. I've always been conditioned to believe that shooting lasers into one's eyeballs was bad. I think I'll just keep squinting when I'm on final.... Think about that next time you catch a flight in a Navy C-9!
|A Cannondale??? ....Does aero mean nothing to you??!!!||Tri_Rich|
Dec 22, 2003 9:36 AM
|Never show your face at Slowtwitch again.|
|Touche, M's'r Pussycat, touche!||sn69|
Dec 22, 2003 9:40 AM
|Actually, Rich, I mostly only lurk over there. Aside from Tom's musings, I don't much care for the endless drone of "which wheels will make me 1/1000 of a second faster" at Wildflower. Damn people, stop and smell the roses...and look at the boobies!
FWIW, my beer can was their old 2.8 series R700 tri-bike. I was about as aero as a barn door. I dig the flame paint on the newer ones, though.
Steel is real (and aero).
|Well I agree with both you and Hoo that ...||Live Steam|
Dec 22, 2003 9:54 AM
|what one does in the service of their country is just as important, but I didn't make that distinction. I didn't think it was necessary. My point if I could clarify again, was that had Ed been drafted and he not served, he would have committed a crime. The choice was either prison or service. Now complying does not mean that he wouldn't have done so without being drafted, even if in the end he was drafted. Ed held out his service in uniform as if it merited him some special Americana status and that those that have not served in uniform should take heed and bear his words as gospel because of his experience vs. others non-experience.
I have always respected those that served and continue to serve this country. To think otherwise is incorrect. I never wrote that. The words I typed were twisted that way in response to the initial post.
|I'm sorry Steam, but no sale here.||sn69|
Dec 22, 2003 11:19 AM
|Lookit, you're point of woulda/coulda/shoulda doesn't hold water, not one stinking drop. You said/wrote/implied that you'd rethink serving if you had it to do over, yet YOU DIDN'T. Ed said that he'd rethink serving if he had it to do over, YET HE DID. You loose, Steam. Sorry, friend, but you loose--it's really that simple.
Furthermore, Ed does merit something special. He not only served; he served in war. He fought in a war. He came home to a war of a different sort where he and his peers were treated like outcasts. Do you get that? He rates far more respect that any of us--me included--grant him on this board. For that matter, so too do our other Vietnam vets here (and we have more than Ed). His words are far closer to gospel than yours, Steam, as defined by ACTION, SERVICE and EXPERIENCE.
Finally, whilst re-reading, I noted that Ed stated you can have your opinion, he has his, yet he still thinks you're pals. Your continued tirade in this thread doesn't reflect your normal sense of humor. Ed might not have been trying to, but, quite frankly, he bested you in the manhood department on this one.
Sometime honor and dignity demand one act with a sense of humility.
Please pause and think, Steam. Ed rates that much.
|I never made it a competition so I||Live Steam|
Dec 22, 2003 11:58 AM
|am not sure about what I lost. I also said that I wanted to keep it in good humor and wanted to debate the points I posed. For some reason people choose what and what not to see in a post. I also have always granted him any anyone else their "opinion" when stated as such. I am sure the point was lost about making blanketed, and unsubstantiated statements. Opinions are often mistake for fact when not stated as such. This is the goal of the Democratic Party. It is readily transparent to those that choose to see it.
I am surprised you feel Ed's words and ideals about our country, merit more value than those that haven't served for one reason or another. I never thought that is what serving the country was about. I thought it was to protect everyone's equal rights. Maybe if I knew it would make me "more equal" I would have made a different choice. I respect the fact that he "did his duty" as my uncle who earned a Purple Heart in battle, put it. Not knowing if Ed had the distinction of earning one, does that make my uncle's opinion more valuable than Ed's because he wasn't wounded? My Uncle wouldn't think so according to what he said on Saturday evening.
I would hope he still thinks we're pals. Neither of us actually said anything to denigrate the other. That actually came for others chiming in. I wasn't looking to reaffirm my manhood either. That was kind of a cheap shot Scott. I am humbled by those that served our Nation, however I don't believe they have earned any special privileges that aren't spelled out in the Bill of Rights. I also don't think it allows them to make statements that are politically flammable in order to gain political ground. As you and Hoo stated so very well, mere service doesn't mean bupkiss especially if it wasn't done with honor. I am sure Ed served with honor even though his ideas are politically divergent from mine.
|Zow! You leave for a few days and things go to hell.||OldEdScott|
Dec 22, 2003 12:15 PM
|Thanks, guys. Especially for the kind words, Scott.
Look, don't want no apology from Steam. Don't need one. Steam, being Steam indeed, just got a little overheated in the face of my Treason, especially on the draftee thing. I'm sure he didn't pause to reflect on how hurtful and just plain ... wrong .. that statement was. He was just arguing with me about politics, and threw the kitchen sink in. Nothing but our usual modus operandi. Ain't no thing.
We can let it go now. I trust this won't come up in the Airing of Grievances tomorrow.
|No, but Tri-Rich banning me from Slowtwitch will! };-)~ nm||sn69|
Dec 22, 2003 12:24 PM
|Do your penance by droolling over a Cervelo and return....NM||Tri_Rich|
Dec 22, 2003 12:30 PM
|http://www.isaac-carbon.com/index2.htm you wann throw-down?||sn69|
Dec 22, 2003 12:35 PM
|The geometry doesn't work for me, but DAMN. SEXY!|
|Nice, but I'll still take a Parlee. nm||No_sprint|
Dec 22, 2003 12:54 PM
|Oh yea!! ......www.techniquesports.com.au....||Tri_Rich|
Dec 22, 2003 12:55 PM
|That's some nice looking bike.|
|Oh yea!! ......www.techniquesports.com.au....||sn69|
Dec 22, 2003 5:11 PM
|Equally nice. It looks similar to the Mike Burroughs Giant from about 7 years ago.|
|I might get cut off here shortly, so bear with me||sn69|
Dec 22, 2003 12:19 PM
|I don't think there is an inherent issue of "increased value" persay. Rather, I think that Ed, your uncle, my father, etc, rate a higher degree of respect than the avergage schlub. I've met plenty of war vets in whom I place reverent respect, and yet I've met or read the words of many whom I regard as crackpots. I feel the same about many of my peers--both directions. Nonetheless, their service should rate the same degree of respect on the part of the public they serve.
Your point about your uncle brings to mind something apropos. To me, you uncle, by merit of his wounds, has an even more heroic quality--in my mind. Have you ever read Dick Marcinco (former CO os SEAL Team 6)? His thoughts on Purple Hearts, as stated in his first book, were far less magnanimous. I believe he referred to them as "the I forgot to duck award." Sh!t...what a blithering, moronic fool, yet I still honor his service (even if he is a convicted felon). Do you start to see the difference from my perspective, Steam? I'll understand if you don't. I'm rambling at present.
Now, you cite the ability to all to share the same right(s), yet to castigated Maddie A. for supposed sedition. Sheesh, Steam, that's a bit contradictory, dotcha think? Did you ever, even once, say something derogatory about the Clinton Administration during his tenure? If so, how are you too not guilty of sedition by your own definition? (And don't tell me the difference was the lack of a war, me and several tens of thousands of my peers can attest to the war that didn't exist and that we didn't fight for the better part of 12 years.)
Going back to my first sentence,...what might surprise you, Hoo, Czar, TJ, Doug and many others is that many if not most of those of us who serve feel that it's our duty to do so on behalf of the citizens of this nation, regardless of how they feel about us. I've spoken about this before, and I won't belabour the point. Ultimately, however, it comes down to the simple fact that some people will love us, some will hate us, some will be ambivilent, and others will make decisions supposedly speaking on our behalf. Whatever...that's how the system works here. It is still MY OPINION, however, that those who have served rate a high degree of respect from the citizens of this nation. A great many people don't agree...again, whatever. Just like a great many people don't grant teachers the reverent respect they deserve. It goes on and on....
The bottom line is that Ed did serve, and he rates the right to quote that service. You don't. I don't say that with animosity, Steam, rather, it's a simple statement of fact (at least it's a statement of fact in "Scott's World.")
Sedition and McCarthy-esque accusations are a different subject entirely, but the relevance should alarm you, particuarly if you are going to quote that which truly is American behavior in general. Should you make it to the Best Coast any time soon, Steam, I would be honored to share a ride with you, but I'd be more compelled to take you to see the Manzanar Concentration Camps in the Ownes Valley. ....
Finally, politically inflamatory statements work both ways and are used by both parties. Surely you can acknowledge that (particularly given your predisposition to say things like "Dumocrat"). Go back and watch the Ken Starr tapes if you want proof.
|Wise beyond your years, young Scott. nm||OldEdScott|
Dec 22, 2003 12:25 PM
|Very well said.||dr hoo|
Dec 22, 2003 12:45 PM
|BTW, the "duty to serve" stuff is no surprise to me. My family is full of vets, and cops, and firefighters, and others who do what they do not for personal gain, but for a better life for others.
Philosophically, I don't think anyone has a duty to serve anyone but themselves. But I do respect those that TAKE ON such duties.
|It does go on and on.||czardonic|
Dec 22, 2003 12:52 PM
"It is still MY OPINION, however, that those who have served rate a high degree of respect from the citizens of this nation. A great many people don't agree...again, whatever. Just like a great many people don't grant teachers the reverent respect they deserve. It goes on and on...."
Indeed. So what about a given profession of course of action rates a higher degree of respect? The degree of sacrifice? The degree of danger? A sense of duty?
Here's hoping it is something else, because I can think of a lot of heroic deeds and a lot of despicable evils that rate highly in all three categories.
Dec 22, 2003 5:15 PM
|That's certainly an open-ended argument with rather strong tendancies to turn circular in nature.
There are also evil teachers. And bad cops. And corrupt doctors. And, yes, there are also rapists, pedophiles and all sorts of meanies who even-gasp-live in Berkely.
Society is. (<--Scott's philosophical nonsense du jour.)
And, as I alluded to, there are a great many people who disagee. Ultimately, it's a personal choice. There are some who might think that podiatrists answer to a higher, more noble calling. I'm sure Bill Gates thinks the same of programers. To each his/her own, my friend.
Dec 22, 2003 9:24 AM
|"irresponsible, unproven, unsubstantiated, and inflammatory statements are dangerous to the welfare of this country especially in a time of war and in a time in history where the spoken and printed word can reach around the globe in mere seconds."
sounds like you are describing your posts rather than anything from OES
you're so far off base on so many points it's funny
sure am glad your father and uncle (and you family history lesson) made you feel good about your rabid neo-con rants - it hasn't proven anything and you were still over the line
|Patriotism and dissent||shawndoggy|
Dec 22, 2003 9:24 AM
Don't really care one way or another whether you give OES an apology... this is an internet discussion board for goodness sake.
But I will say that the things that make ME feel patriotic are hearing dissent, seeing protesters in the street, and reading letters to the editor questioning the administration's policies (whichever party happens to be in power and whoever happens to be protesting). I was ready to vomit post 9-11 when "patriotism" was undergoing the "buy a fridge, a flag for your car, and shut up" transformation. The beauty of our American freedom is the ability to stand up and question the government.
WWII is frequently sold as the last time the country was "united" around a common threat. But look at the level of censorship that the government imposed, as well as the central control over media outlets, and the lack of public information from behind enemy lines (i.e. we weren't getting blogs from Jews in Warsaw like we were from Iraqis in Bagdad). Much of the unity that came from WWII is a result of media manipulation as much as it was a result of citizens united around a common goal. Public opinion may well have differed during WWII had the floodgates of information been opened the way they are today (not sure which way, and I could be wrong, of course).
Anyhow, it's the "requirement" that I support the administration right or wrong and just shut up that strikes me as unpatriotic, not actually exercising my freedom to question.
|I appreciate you ...||Live Steam|
Dec 22, 2003 9:37 AM
|civil response unlike say MJ who is plainly a literate moron.
I never said anything about "requirement". However I believe this "thinking aloud" stuff is dangerous such as Albright's statement. It is disrespectful and seditious. Maybe it's fine with friends at a dinner party, but I don't think it was appropriate for a former Secretary of State to utter in a public forum and among a political journalist. She didn't know what would be done with her statement. She isn't an ordinary Joe hypothesizing. She was going to be on that show because of her germane knowledge about international affairs. The offending statement came just prior to that appearance and could be construed to be factual.
Ted Kennedy has done it. Clark and Dean have both done it. I think it sets a dangerous precedent when people with such visibility and supposed credulity, make unsubstantiated and dangerous remarks. Why does freedom of speech equate to freedom to lie for political gain?
Dec 22, 2003 9:50 AM
|she gets free speech just like everyone else - she can say what she wants
construed as factual by who? everyone on her side already thinks it and everyone on your side wouldn't believe her if she told you the sky is blue
what's more unsubstantiated and dangerous her comments or GW's lie re WMD's?
the only person who seems to not be telling thr truth is GW
disagreement is not unamerican - public disagreement and discussion is the cornerstone of democracy
yes you might think I am a moron - but I'm pleased you consider me a literate moron - I on the other hand can disregard most of the things you post as you read the NY Post and listen to Fox news for "facts" which I suppose makes you an semi-literate moron
you'll be treated to a civil response when you treat others with a civil response - you should look up the word 'irony'
Dec 22, 2003 9:54 AM
|you should look up u.s. citizen|
Dec 22, 2003 10:00 AM
|what makes you think I'm not a US citizen? anyways - is this a US citizens-only board? what makes you think I and my family haven't served in the US military?
if you actually have something to respond with of substance go ahead - but if my points are being dismissed because of your assumptions about who I am that's very sad indeed - you should get out more - maybe get a passport and travel a bit it seems you've lead a pretty sheltered life - or you could always enlist as SN69 suggested you still can - lots of folks do that as a way to see the world and escape
Dec 22, 2003 10:10 AM
|youre not a citizen, admit it. i've traveled to places you cant spell and what makes you think i havent served? if i lived in your world, escape would be the first thing on my list.|
|Incision benefitted. LOL nm||No_sprint|
Dec 22, 2003 10:11 AM
Dec 22, 2003 10:03 AM
|Fox's reporting of a flippant remark made off camera (corroboration by makeup artists and all) just struck me as silly. Had she made the "offending statement" on air with the intent to disseminate it, then yes, you may have a point, though I suspect other talking heads are saying as much. But I guess I don't see the distinction between the dinner party and the green room, myself. My dinner guests could always go knock on Fox's front door to corroborate my unfounded suggestions.
And I don't see the comment as "dangerous" either, except in the political sense. Who exactly is put in danger by hypothisizing that OBL is currently in custody?
But anyway, back to my prior post, freedom of speech doesn't equate to freedom to make statements without being questioned. In other words, the KKK can go spout ridiculous racist rhetoric, but it doesn't mean they aren't wrong. Freedom of speech means freedom to stick one's foot in one's mouth, not freedom to make authoritative statements and not be questioned on them. You, by doing the questioning of M. Albright's statement, are also exercising your right... and so it goes. Debate = freedom; Silence = tyranny.
|It takes a "real man" to review his comments. . .||czardonic|
Dec 22, 2003 10:44 AM
|. . .and admit that he was right all along and everyone else should shut up.|| |