Yet another reason why I don't have sympathy for these guys:
This is from Howie Carr's Boston Herald column.
"Now we find out that Peter Berdovsky, and his pal Sean Stevens were out videotaping the first responders’ handling of the initial “suspicious bomb,†at Sullivan Square in Charlestown. According to the sources, they never bothered to alert anyone to the hoax. They were in effect just goofing on the cops, recording it all for posterity, or at least YouTube. "
You know what, I think we should yell "fire" in a crowded theater.
Do you think people are so stupid that they'll just immediately run away? That they trust the word of some nut, when, if there were a real fire, they could fricking see it? In a theater, there aren't many places for a fire to hide, especially if it's dark. Try it next time you're at a theater. See if anyone runs. They'll probably just give you a big STFU after looking around and seeing no fire.
I think it would be a magnificent expression of civil disobedience and the triumph of free speech if people all over the country started yelling "fire" in crowded theaters on a regular basis.
You know what, I think weshouldyell "fire" in a crowded theater.
Do you think people are so stupid that they'll just immediately run away? That they trust the word of some nut, when, if there were a real fire, they could fricking see it? In a theater, there aren't many places for a fire to hide, especially if it's dark. Try it next time you're at a theater. See if anyone runs. They'll probably just give you a big STFU after looking around and seeing no fire.
I think it would be a magnificent expression of civil disobedience and the triumph of free speech if people all over the country started yelling "fire" in crowded theaters on a regular basis.
So, you want to be the little kid who cried wolf? We all know how that story turned out...
So, you want to be the little kid who cried wolf? We all know how that story turned out...
Ah, so you're saying if I yell "fire" too many times, then some day there will really be a fire and I'll burn to death because no one came to help me? If that happened, I wouldn't protest, because it would be the most hilariously ironic thing ever.
You know what, I think weshouldyell "fire" in a crowded theater.
This phrase isn't really supposed to be taken literally. It's become an expression that stands for a whole category of unprotected speech. It's just an easy way of referring to that category of speech.
So, you want to be the little kid who cried wolf? We all know how that story turned out...
Ah, so you're saying if I yell "fire" too many times, then some day there will really be a fire and I'll burn to death because no one came to help me? If that happened, I wouldn't protest, because it would be the most hilariously ironic thing ever.
No, the point I am making is that using this strategy to desensitize people will only bite you in the ass.
Every time you hear a conservative use the words "loony lefty" when describing a Democrat the speaker loses all credibility. The opposite holds true when a liberal starts talking about how Bush is murdering babies or poisoning our water supply.
Yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre, as a national campaign, will only serve to further desensitize people to the point that when a real emergency occurs many people will think it's just a joke.
I can't wait for the first "real" terrorist group to use the Aqua Teen thing to plant real bombs and then show up with a camera when the bomb squad shows up. then the "real" terrorists can say it's all a joke and then, when enough people are present, detonate the bomb. Yeah, it's an extreme thought but it could happen.
I would use the sarcasm color but IE does not like the color button...
Every time you hear a conservative use the words "loony lefty" when describing a Democrat the speaker loses all credibility. The opposite holds true when a liberal starts talking about how Bush is murdering babies or poisoning our water supply.
Oh please, I'm neither Democrat nor Republican, but this is just flat out ridiculous. To say that the Republican party is somehow persecuted is bullshit.
Every time you hear a conservative use the words "loony lefty" when describing a Democrat the speaker loses all credibility. The opposite holds true when a liberal starts talking about how Bush is murdering babies or poisoning our water supply.
Oh please, I'm neither Democrat nor Republican, but this is just flat out ridiculous. To say that the Republican party is somehow prosecuted is bullshit.
Did you read the whole paragraph? I didn't say "Republican" anywhere in there!
I think Steve gave us the line about the corporate firewall in the politics thread b/c he didn't want to reveal how utterly far left he was.
There's something very important you and the rest of America need to understand: we're in as much danger from terrorist attacks post 9/11 as we were pre 9/11.
Osama Bin Laden wasn't born on 9/6. His organization didn't start up on 9/8. The offenses he claims we committed to cause such enmity did not occur on 9/10.
The reason you think that terrorists might attack is because of Bush's fear, uncertainty, and doubt. He's never provided any evidence for his claims; he just capitalized on what happened to convince people that we're in some sort of "post-9/11 world" that is somehow different, and requires his presence in order to make the world safe for freedom. And random, useless wars.
9/11 was an isolated incident, not unlike the many and just as serious terrorist actions that have occurred prior, which somehow didn't set off some sort of vague new world based on the date of their occurrence.
You are far more likely to die in a plane crash caused by lightning striking right next to where you were sitting than you are to die in a terrorist attack. Statistically speaking, if you're a modern American, you're quite a bit more likely to die because of a hurricane and a botched rescue attempt than you are because of lite-brite bombs.
In order to stop terrorism completely, you must stop all freedom and action completely. A totalitarian regime is required to implement this. You must take away all fundamental freedoms of Americans to "protect" them, and there's still no guarantee of safety. There's no middle ground; uncertainty over your safety means you aren't safe, so you've got to take more freedoms away. There is no line; less freedom means more security. Why stop at "fire" when you can take away all citizens' right to say anything at all?
As a rule, I never denote my sarcasm. I find it far more interesting to see how people take my words in a neutral context. Your mother was a whore. Cold fusion is impossible. I hate Asians. Banana.
What I was trying to do is point out (from both political sides) that when say stupid things you should expect to be ignored.
i.e. every time a conservative radio host calls a liberal a "loony lefty" whatever comes next out of their mouth is not worth listening too. Same goes for liberal commentators who overuse the "Bush wants to poison your drinking water" type arguments. when you come off sounding like a far left/right wing partisan what ever message you are trying to get across is lost.
When you said the opposite holds true, I thought you meant that it gains credibility rather than lose it. My bad.
What I was trying to do is point out (from both political sides) that when say stupid things you should expect to be ignored.
i.e. every time a conservative radio host calls a liberal a "loony lefty" whatever comes next out of their mouth is not worth listening too. Same goes for liberal commentators who overuse the "Bush wants to poison your drinking water" type arguments. when you come off sounding like a far left/right wing partisan what ever message you are trying to get across is lost.
When you said the opposite holds true, I thought you meant that it gains credibility rather than lose it. My bad.
Ahhh... my dyslexic mind through the wrong word in there...
kenjura's right about terrorism. If there were ever an instance of FUD, it's this administration's use of it to convice us that "the terrorists" "hate our freedom". They don't care one way or another what freedoms we have or don't have. What they hated that we had an air base in Saudi Arabia. They also hate most of our mideast policy, but the Saudi base was particularly vexing. And so what happened? We "cut-and-run"-ed and shut down the base -exactly what they wanted.
Bush has been flying high on a froth of FUD for six years now. If it hadn't been for "the terrorists", he'd be best known for choking on a pretzel.
The immediate goal of the "terrorists" is to get Americans off of "Muslim" soil. They care about our "freedom" the same way Cthulhu cares about humanity.
They also hate our culture in that the exportation of Hollywood tends to erode their strictly conservative/religious culture. Sort of like when someone drinks the "no name" soda from the grocery store all their life and then they suddenly find out that there are "other" sodas on the market that they can drink...
The immediate goal of the "terrorists" is to get Americans off of "Muslim" soil. They care about our "freedom" the same way Cthulhu cares about humanity.
Which is why I say: Declare victory and get out. The only reason we have any problem with that region is that we're there. The primary national interest we have there is oil. So: Nationalize the oil companies, get 'em all out, and then tell them: Now you're in the business of building electric cars. Off you go. Let's see now. . . what other national interest do we have there? Oh yeah. Israel.
Okay. I have no problem with Israel. I like Israel. I don't like it that Israel causes problems mostly based on geography. So ask the people of Israel: Wouldn't you rather be someplace nicer? Like maybe Denver, Vale, Seattle, or maybe even Vancouver (and the surrounding countryside). It'd have to be nice or they might not wanna go. Not South Dakota. Oooh - maybe Florida. Actually, Florida is about the size of Israel, isn't it? That'd be a good swap. You can live there, build whatever you want there, and no one will bother you. And if they go, fine. If they don't, that's fine too, but we stop selling them army stuff.
Then the Muslim dudes would be much less inclined to give us any trouble, and if they want to slay each other, fine. Maybe we could send Paris Hilton over and make a reality show out of it.
In a weird way, I can fully understand the problem Muslims have with Israel. Look at it this way:
According to religious texts, the end of the world comes after the Israelites rebuild the temple of Solomon. If the Muslims can kick the Jews out of Israel than the temple will not be rebuilt. Ergo, the Muslims are trying to save the world!
Strange as it may seem, the Israelis never kicked the Muslims out of Jerusalem after they took it over. Muslims are not so nice. Many churches in conquered Muslim lands are either museums now or were destroyed. Wasn't there a recent fracas over the pope going to Turkey and visiting a museum/church? Something about fear he might bless himself while there?
The US can't just pull out of the middle east though, too many people have too much pride at stake.
As for nationalizing the oil companies, I'm against that sort of communism... Telling a company, "hey, you can sign contracts for drilling in the Middle East for oil but don't come crying to us when shit goes wrong and expect the US military to come and bail your ass out," is fine with me. I'm all for Capitalism, just not for the implied safety net of rescuing companies because of some wild "national security" threat.
There is plenty of oil on the mainland US and off the coast. It may not be as easy to get to as it is in the Middle East, but it is there.
Who cares? Pride is no reason to imperil another. Unwillingness to leave due only to pride is worth a violent revolution. I might even start going to a gym to get ready. . .
Comments
I'd argue if it weren't true. You're right, though, Joe. How dare I question my God-appointed leader when our troops are over there dying?!
This is from Howie Carr's Boston Herald column.
"Now we find out that Peter Berdovsky, and his pal Sean Stevens were out videotaping the first responders’ handling of the initial “suspicious bomb,†at Sullivan Square in Charlestown. According to the sources, they never bothered to alert anyone to the hoax. They were in effect just goofing on the cops, recording it all for posterity, or at least YouTube. "
Do you think people are so stupid that they'll just immediately run away? That they trust the word of some nut, when, if there were a real fire, they could fricking see it? In a theater, there aren't many places for a fire to hide, especially if it's dark. Try it next time you're at a theater. See if anyone runs. They'll probably just give you a big STFU after looking around and seeing no fire.
I think it would be a magnificent expression of civil disobedience and the triumph of free speech if people all over the country started yelling "fire" in crowded theaters on a regular basis.
Every time you hear a conservative use the words "loony lefty" when describing a Democrat the speaker loses all credibility. The opposite holds true when a liberal starts talking about how Bush is murdering babies or poisoning our water supply.
Yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre, as a national campaign, will only serve to further desensitize people to the point that when a real emergency occurs many people will think it's just a joke.
I can't wait for the first "real" terrorist group to use the Aqua Teen thing to plant real bombs and then show up with a camera when the bomb squad shows up. then the "real" terrorists can say it's all a joke and then, when enough people are present, detonate the bomb. Yeah, it's an extreme thought but it could happen.
I would use the sarcasm color but IE does not like the color button...
I changed it form prosecuted to persecuted, which is what I originally meant. Sorry if that caused any mix up.
There's something very important you and the rest of America need to understand: we're in as much danger from terrorist attacks post 9/11 as we were pre 9/11.
Osama Bin Laden wasn't born on 9/6. His organization didn't start up on 9/8. The offenses he claims we committed to cause such enmity did not occur on 9/10.
The reason you think that terrorists might attack is because of Bush's fear, uncertainty, and doubt. He's never provided any evidence for his claims; he just capitalized on what happened to convince people that we're in some sort of "post-9/11 world" that is somehow different, and requires his presence in order to make the world safe for freedom. And random, useless wars.
9/11 was an isolated incident, not unlike the many and just as serious terrorist actions that have occurred prior, which somehow didn't set off some sort of vague new world based on the date of their occurrence.
You are far more likely to die in a plane crash caused by lightning striking right next to where you were sitting than you are to die in a terrorist attack. Statistically speaking, if you're a modern American, you're quite a bit more likely to die because of a hurricane and a botched rescue attempt than you are because of lite-brite bombs.
In order to stop terrorism completely, you must stop all freedom and action completely. A totalitarian regime is required to implement this. You must take away all fundamental freedoms of Americans to "protect" them, and there's still no guarantee of safety. There's no middle ground; uncertainty over your safety means you aren't safe, so you've got to take more freedoms away. There is no line; less freedom means more security. Why stop at "fire" when you can take away all citizens' right to say anything at all?
I have no problem with a dicatorship, as long as I'm the dictator!
Bush has been flying high on a froth of FUD for six years now. If it hadn't been for "the terrorists", he'd be best known for choking on a pretzel.
The immediate goal of the "terrorists" is to get Americans off of "Muslim" soil. They care about our "freedom" the same way Cthulhu cares about humanity.
They also hate our culture in that the exportation of Hollywood tends to erode their strictly conservative/religious culture. Sort of like when someone drinks the "no name" soda from the grocery store all their life and then they suddenly find out that there are "other" sodas on the market that they can drink...
Okay. I have no problem with Israel. I like Israel. I don't like it that Israel causes problems mostly based on geography. So ask the people of Israel: Wouldn't you rather be someplace nicer? Like maybe Denver, Vale, Seattle, or maybe even Vancouver (and the surrounding countryside). It'd have to be nice or they might not wanna go. Not South Dakota. Oooh - maybe Florida. Actually, Florida is about the size of Israel, isn't it? That'd be a good swap. You can live there, build whatever you want there, and no one will bother you. And if they go, fine. If they don't, that's fine too, but we stop selling them army stuff.
Then the Muslim dudes would be much less inclined to give us any trouble, and if they want to slay each other, fine. Maybe we could send Paris Hilton over and make a reality show out of it.
According to religious texts, the end of the world comes after the Israelites rebuild the temple of Solomon. If the Muslims can kick the Jews out of Israel than the temple will not be rebuilt. Ergo, the Muslims are trying to save the world!
Strange as it may seem, the Israelis never kicked the Muslims out of Jerusalem after they took it over. Muslims are not so nice. Many churches in conquered Muslim lands are either museums now or were destroyed. Wasn't there a recent fracas over the pope going to Turkey and visiting a museum/church? Something about fear he might bless himself while there?
The US can't just pull out of the middle east though, too many people have too much pride at stake.
As for nationalizing the oil companies, I'm against that sort of communism... Telling a company, "hey, you can sign contracts for drilling in the Middle East for oil but don't come crying to us when shit goes wrong and expect the US military to come and bail your ass out," is fine with me. I'm all for Capitalism, just not for the implied safety net of rescuing companies because of some wild "national security" threat.
There is plenty of oil on the mainland US and off the coast. It may not be as easy to get to as it is in the Middle East, but it is there.
What? I heard it on CNN. ^_^