Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
The "Bravery" of Keith Olbermann, et al.
Posted by: Dale Franks on Tuesday, September 19, 2006

You know, I don't mind it when people say outrageous things. I don't really mind when people engage in a little overstatement for polemic effect. But it strikes me as a little stupid when people make outrageous statements in which they clearly don't believe.

McQ's Olbermann post got me to thinking about this a little bit. For instance, there are people on the left who declaim that George W. Bush is setting up a theocratic fascist state. Then, in the next breath, they discuss whether they want Hillary Clinton or whoever to become president in 2008. You cannot simultaneously believe that Chimpy McBushitlerburton will impose a fascist theocracy, and that there will even be an election in 2008. One of these two things cannot be true. And frankly, no one who is even remotely serious believes that George W. Bush will do anything other than go back to Texas in January 2009.

Similarly, Mr. Olbermann knows that he is, in fact, permitted to disagree with the Bush Administration. He has no fear whatever about spouting off with his views on (theoretically) nationwide television. Moreover, he knows, beyond any doubt, that the Secret police won't be knocking on his door at 2:00 am to drag him off into the nacht und nebel, never to be heard from again. He knows that he can say anything he wants, without fear of reprisal.

So let's not get all giddy over Mr. Olbermann's "bravery" at "speaking truth to power". Bravery requires risk, and, as Mr. Olbermann knows to a certainty, he risks nothing.

But, some people are simply more stupid than they are dishonest. For instance, on The View the other day, Rosie O'Donnell declared that she found Christian fundamentalists to be just as dangerous as Islamic fundamentalists. Yeah. Well. You know, when Baptists are strapping bombs to themselves to blow up synagogues, flying planes into buildings, and holding vast street marches to call for the beheading of atheists, then you be sure to get back to me Rosie. Until then, you're just making silly mouth noises.

Because Ms. O'Donnell knows that, in the real world, she can say nasty things about Christians all she wants. And, in return, the Christians will do...nothing. There won't be massive street demonstrations. A Christian martyr won't be blowing himself up in the studio audience of The View. A Christian sniper won't take her out as she walks into the parking lot. Christian holy warriors won't kidnap her and video themselves cutting off her head. In fact, there's a very good chance that Ms. O'Donnell will never even hear of any backlash to her statement at all, and if she does, will hardly attach any personal risk to it.

But, what do you think would happen to Ms. O'Donnell if she went to the Mideast in order to describe her views about religion and sexuality to the viewers of Eqyptian State Television? Any takers on the odds of her even making it to Cairo International Airport?

I wonder which audience reaction she would find more disturbing.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Rosie O’Donnell declared that she found Christian fundamentalists to be just as dangerous as Islamic fundamentalists.
I doubt if this will make much difference to you, but Rosie said that she believed that Christian EXTREMISTS were as dangerous as Muslim EXTREMISTS.

There seem to be a LOT fewer Christian extremists these days, so in that respect, I think the comparison fails, but extremists ARE extremists and they are all dangerous.

If you believe she MEANT Fundamentalists, perhaps you are correct, it would not surprise me that a lesbian would equate the two, though anyone looking from the outside in sees a huge difference between a group that would make her existence as a homosexual illegal and condemn her to Hell, and a group that would just send her to directly to whatever the afterlife has in store for her.

In short, does is surprise you that a lesbian feels threatened by Christian fundamentalists?

Cap



 
Written By: CaptinSarcastic (yeah, that one)
URL: http://
In short, does is surprise you that a lesbian feels threatened by Christian fundamentalists?
Yes, since I don’t think she does feel threatened. She may not like their politics, but she has no fear whatsoever of Christian fundamentalists hunting her down and killing her.
 
Written By: Dale Franks
URL: http://www.qando.net
Keith Olbermann.

I pity Dan Abrams. I like they guy, but he is now heading MSNBC. A job I wouldn’t wish on CaptinSarcastic.

Dan can’t be happy with Keith Olbermann. Countdown may have a following, but most of them need to see a mental health professional immediately.

I last surfed into Countdown in the middle of the "Path to 9/11" brouhaha, and was treated to a perfect example of McCarthyism (and I don’t mean Eugene). I had never seen it done with such perfect execution before. It was as if he had done it before.

I suggest that Dan have Olbermann do a Monica Lewinshy Flashback piece that will air over a 5 day period on Olbermann’s Countdown. This ought to send Olbermann packing. Olbermann hates the whole Lewinshy thing that he got stuck covering on MSNBC as part of White House in Crisis, making him flee back to ESPN.
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
Yes, since I don’t think she does feel threatened. She may not like their politics, but she has no fear whatsoever of Christian fundamentalists hunting her down and killing her.


I forgot how careful and explicit I have to be with every word around some folks(wish you held your President to this standard).

Feeling threatened does not necessarily mean that one feels that they will be hunted down and killed.

I am not taking the position that Christian Fundamentalist are as dangerous as Islamic EXTREMISTS I was simply making the point that it does not surprise me that a lesbian feels threatened by Christian Fundamentalist.

Perhaps you would rather eat your head rather than agree with me, so instead of making an inane comment of disagreement, why don’t you just let it lie.

Cap
 
Written By: CaptinSarcastic (yeah, that one)
URL: http://
Well Cap, why don’t you define what you mean by ’threatened’ then, instead of tossing that out there with no context whatsoever, reapeatedly. The general thrust of the primary post was about physical risk, after all, but I guess we’re supposed to read your mind?



 
Written By: Unknown
URL: http://
so perhaps you should carefully and explicitly explain what you mean by "threatened", if it does not involve physical harm.


"I am not taking the position that Christian Fundamentalist are as dangerous as Islamic EXTREMISTS"

But that is what you say she said, and that is the point of the comparison.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Well Cap, why don’t you define what you mean by ’threatened’ then, instead of tossing that out there with no context whatsoever, reapeatedly. The general thrust of the primary post was about physical risk, after all, but I guess we’re supposed to read your mind?
There was context in my statement, you simply chose to ignore it. Here, would you like to ignore it again...
anyone looking from the outside in sees a huge difference between a group that would make her existence as a homosexual illegal and condemn her to Hell (Christian Fndamentalists), and a group (Islamic Extremists) that would just send her directly to whatever the afterlife has in store for her.

In short, does is surprise you that a lesbian feels threatened by Christian fundamentalists?
As you can see, I spelled exactly what I believe SHE believes her risk to be, and it is NOT physical, (unless you consider incarceration to be physical, in which case, it is physical, and some Christian Fundamentalists ARE supportive of laws against homosexuality) and then when I said that it is not surprising that she feels threatened, why would you assume that I meant something other than what I just said her risk is?

Some of you folks can read anything into something, except apparently the intended meaning.
"I am not taking the position that Christian Fundamentalist are as dangerous as Islamic EXTREMISTS"

But that is what you say she said, and that is the point of the comparison.
No, that is not what I said she said, I said that compared Islamic Extremists with Christian Extremists, and I said that both ARE dangerous, there just seems to be a LOT more Islamic extremists these days.

I know this can be confusing, but there four words in play here, and they are not interchangeable, so when one word changes, the entire statement changes.

Christian - Islamic - Extremist - Fundamentalist

Islamic Fundamentalist -
Islamic Extremist - these people kill people
Christian Fundamentalist -
Christian Extremist -these people kill people

Would you say that Rosie should feel threatened by these folks if they were to gain power...
Robert Lee of the Society for the Practical Establishment and Perpetuation of the Ten Commandments is one of the more outspoken of radical conservative Christian sources on the matter of homosexuality. In his essay "Against Homosexuality," he proposes much more punitive legislation against gays and lesbians. 4

Lee makes a number of points in his essay; some are stated and others are implied. In the chart below, we contrast Lee’s arguments with possible counter claims by those who promote equal rights for persons of all sexual orientations:

Robert Lee’s proposed laws

requires that all homosexuals are to be executed. "...it is the God-given responsibility of corporeal governments to do the proper things to remove it from society."

Those who sympathize with homosexuals or who promote tolerance of persons of all orientations are also to be executed.
Hey, I may have just committed a capital crime.

I’ll admit, Lee is an EXTREMIST not just a fundamentlist, but many Fundamentalists support criminalizing homosexuality, most do not support the death penalty for it, that is where I would draw the line between Fundamentalism and Extremism. Of course if someone suggested torture, I would draw a new line.
Organizations promoting the death penalty for sexually active homosexuals:
Society for the Practical Establishment and Perpetuation of the Ten Commandments, at: http://www.tencommandments.org/
Citizens for the Ten Commandments at: http://www.hom.net/~angels/deathpenalty.html
Coalition on Revival, a Christian Reconstructionist movement. See: http://www.ifas.org/fw/9101/radical.html
The Society for the Promotion of Reformation in Government, at: http://www.spring-ni.com/downloads/title3e
Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) of Topeka, KS. See: http://www.godhatesfags.com
Conservative Christian groups promoting restricted rights for homosexuals:
Alliance for Traditional Marriage (Hawaii)
American Family Association
Americans for Truth About Homosexuality
Center for Reclaiming America
Christian Family Network
Christian Coalition
Citizens for Community Values
Concerned Women for America
Coral Ridge Ministries
Exodus International
Kerusso Ministries
Liberty Counsel
Mission America
National Legal Foundation
Heck, I’m a Christian and I feel that our nation is threatened by some of these folks, not in a physical way, but in a "America would lose what makes it great these people ran things" way.

You might feel that America is threatened by people like me, if I were running things.

Does it ever occur to you that we can do more damage to ourselves than the terrorists can do to us? How can that not be threatening? Just because it’s necessarily physical?

Cap




 
Written By: CaptinSarcastic (yeah, that one)
URL: http://
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
According to Dale, they only manner in which the free speech clause of this amendment can be violated is if the speaker knows that "the Secret police won’t be knocking on his door at 2:00 am to drag him off into the nacht und nebel, never to be heard from again." Otherwise, as Dale puts it, the speaker must know "that he can say anything he wants, without fear of reprisal."

This site long ago abandoned any pretense of libertarianism. When it actively propagandized for Bush in the 2004 election, its abandonment of small government principles became apparent. Terry Schiavo, anyone? Medical marijuana, anyone? Federal ban on gay marriage, anyone? Bush was on the side of government on these issues. And this site has always been on Bush’s side. Always. It might quibble with Bush, but it is never disloyal. Indeed, Jon has become a synchophant of George Allen, a dyed in the wool Bush Cult member.

But with this post, Dale charts new territory. Now, according to Dale, the only way in which government can exact its reprisal for a citizen’s exercise of his or her right to free speech is if the government can haul him or her away in the middle of the night. If the government cannot or does not do this, a citizen can say anything he wants, without fear of reprisal.

Dale seriously believes this. No Sh**. Dale seriously trusts the government. The government would never hurt you for exercising your right to free speech. Never. And unless the government locks you up indefinitely, the government cannot hurt you.

So, according to Dale, when a man says something negative about his elected officials, and, as a result, the government exercises eminent domain over his property, forces him out of his home, sells it to someone else, and does not compensate him, he has no right to complain. Because, after all, as Dale himself has said:

"He knows that he can say anything he wants, without fear of reprisal."

I have never accused Dale as being a principled libertarian. But this takes the cake.


 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
Uhhhh, if risk = probability x time, then perhaps you are both right.

The probability of Islamic fundamentalists killing Rosie is high as there are far more of them than there are Christian extremists. But, she doesn’t spend much time there, so for Rosie the risk is low.

Now, for the Christians, there may not be as many of them committed to violence but since they are co-located with her in the US, her time exposure is greater, and thus her risk might be the same as for Islamic wackos.

However, joking aside I think she is at much greater risk from Islamic fundamentalists followed by fat lesbian loving stalkers than by Christian fundamentalists.
 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
Now, according to Dale, the only way in which government can exact its reprisal for a citizen’s exercise of his or her right to free speech is if the government can haul him or her away in the middle of the night.
Reading for comprehension isn’t really your deal, is it?

I never said that was the only way government could strike against a speaker. Never even implied it. In fact, I didn’t even discuss it. I merely pointed out that the government would, in fact, do nothing to Mr Olbermann.
Terry Schiavo, anyone? Medical marijuana, anyone? Federal ban on gay marriage, anyone? Bush was on the side of government on these issues.
Uh, and we were on the other side. So what’s your point? Assuming you have one.

Idiot.
 
Written By: Dale Franks
URL: http://www.qando.net
I doubt if this will make much difference to you, but Rosie said that she believed that Christian EXTREMISTS were as dangerous as Muslim EXTREMISTS.
No, she said radical Christianity is just as dangerous as radical Islam, which is an enormous crock of sh*t if ever I’ve heard one. Danger is quantifiable. I don’t see any danger from Christianity in practice, and there is none in the teachings. The opposite is true of Islam on both counts.
Christian Extremist -these people kill people
Who? Where? When? Eric Rudolph? Ain’t very dangerous now, is he? Who are the dangerous Christians?
 
Written By: Pablo
URL: http://
When it actively propagandized for Bush in the 2004 election, its abandonment of small government principles became apparent.
MK, in case you missed it in the other thread, watch how I use a first person pronoun and then also - I repeat - and then also - the impersonal pronoun!


I can’t believe MK is still trying to fight this losing battle. It’s unbelievable that he continues to make this claim.


"I can’t believe" leads to "It’s unbelievable". Voila!

 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
Feeling threatened does not necessarily mean that one feels that they will be hunted down and killed.

I am not taking the position that Christian Fundamentalist are as dangerous as Islamic EXTREMISTS I was simply making the point that it does not surprise me that a lesbian feels threatened by Christian Fundamentalist.
It suprises me. A lesbian is in no danger- either physically or existentially from a Christian Fundamentalist. There’s many things they can feel but threatened is not one of them
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Oh, wait! Now I get it. The Loud Lesbian Land Yacht’s feelings are in just as much danger from those nasty xtians as they are from those funny brownish people with the ululating.

This must be that touchy feely New Age danger, that won’t spoil itself with thoughts of stoning, beheading and suicide bombing. She’s not thinking about her neck, just her feelings.
 
Written By: Pablo
URL: http://
Because Ms. O’Donnell knows that, in the real world, she can say nasty things about Christians all she wants. And, in return, the Christians will do...nothing.
Not exactly nothing. Maybe we’ll stage a non-violent protest for being smeared. And a lot of us will stop watching her show. I stopped watching your last show after the Tom Selleck incident and now I have been adequately reminded why I shouldn’t watch her new one. Thanks Rosie.
 
Written By: Jeff the Baptist
URL: http://jeffthebaptist.blogspot.com
"it would not surprise me that a lesbian would equate the two,"

Why not? Are lesbians mentally deficient?

********************

"As you can see, I spelled exactly what I believe SHE believes her risk to be,"

If that is what she believed her risks to be, and she still thinks christians are as dangerous, she is indeed a moron.

************
Quote from CS;

" but Rosie said that she believed that Christian EXTREMISTS were as dangerous as Muslim EXTREMISTS."

Quote from my response;
{"I am not taking the position that Christian Fundamentalist are as dangerous as Islamic EXTREMISTS"

But that is what you say she said, and that is the point of the comparison.}

Response by CS to my resonse;
"No, that is not what I said she said, I said that compared Islamic Extremists with Christian Extremists, and I said that both ARE dangerous, there just seems to be a LOT more Islamic extremists these days."

**************************

"Would you say that Rosie should feel threatened by these folks if they were to gain power..."

We would all feel threatened by these folks, but I doubt oif that is who she was talking about. The real threat from marginal folks like that exists only in the minds of those who want to make a rhetorical point.

*****************

"Oh, wait! Now I get it. The Loud Lesbian Land Yacht’s feelings are in just as much danger from those nasty xtians as they are from those funny brownish people with the ululating."

Oh! Now I see. Never mind.







 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Take your meds Mkultra.
 
Written By: Unknown
URL: http://
My only question is how do they fit her freakishly large head on screen and still manage to keep all the other women in the shot?
 
Written By: DS
URL: http://
So, according to Dale, when a man says something negative about his elected officials, and, as a result, the government exercises eminent domain over his property, forces him out of his home, sells it to someone else, and does not compensate him, he has no right to complain.
Chimpy McHitlerburton threatened to seize Keith Olbermann’s house? Who knew?
 
Written By: Jordan
URL: http://
So, according to Dale, when a man says something negative about his elected officials, and, as a result, the government exercises eminent domain over his property, forces him out of his home, sells it to someone else, and does not compensate him, he has no right to complain. Because, after all, as Dale himself has said:

"He knows that he can say anything he wants, without fear of reprisal."

I have never accused Dale as being a principled libertarian. But this takes the cake.
I’ve accused you of being an idiot and posts like this are one of the reasons why.

But I’ll play. To whom did that happen, MK? Surely you have at least one instance of this happening under the iron fist of Bush the Evil One (TM), don’t you?
 
Written By: Mark A. Flacy
URL: http://
Open your eyes Mark! Chimpy’s stormtroopers are everywhere! Why, just the other day one of my liberal friends accidentally turned the TV to the Daily Show. Horrified, he quickly changed the channel, but it was too late. He disappeared later that night and hasn’t been seen since.
 
Written By: Jordan
URL: http://
If an anti-gay Christian murdered Rosie, I wonder what percentage of moderate Christians would defend his actions.
 
Written By: snafurious
URL: http://
I wonder what percentage of moderate Christians would defend his actions.
I’m guessing it would be an incredibly small number. I’m sure there are 10 or 20 nutjobs out there who would find a way to rationalize such an act... so I’ll put the % at 0.00000000017 of all (not just moderate) Christians.
 
Written By: meagain
URL: http://
I’m guessing it would be an incredibly small number.
I could be convinced it’s as many as 100. None of whom I would consider to be moderate.

What I was really going for is the obvious comparison to defenders of Islamic violence. Of course, I don’t really consider them (the apologists) moderates either.
 
Written By: snafurious
URL: http://
Yes, since I don’t think she does feel threatened. She may not like their politics, but she has no fear whatsoever of Christian fundamentalists hunting her down and killing her.

The probability of Islamic fundamentalists killing Rosie is high as there are far more of them than there are Christian extremists. But, she doesn’t spend much time there, so for Rosie the risk is low.

No, she said radical Christianity is just as dangerous as radical Islam, which is an enormous crock of sh*t if ever I’ve heard one. Danger is quantifiable.

It suprises me. A lesbian is in no danger- either physically or existentially from a Christian Fundamentalist.
It is not only reasonable to assume that Rosie O’Donnell feels threatened by Christian Fundamentalists/Extremists (you choose… whatever), it’s highly probable that she feels threatened. Therefore, her comments may be ill chosen, they are, however, forgivable.

Remember, Ms. O’Donnell is a mother.

If the government ever carries the flag of the likes of Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Tony Perkins, and the like, it is not inconceivable to imagine agendas pushing for the removal of her children because she is gay. And if she is similar to any other mother, she would feel mortally threatened at the prospect of losing her brood.

This scenario is unlikely, but no more unlikely than Islamic extremists taking over the US government.

Rosie O’Donnell’s comments are nothing more than a rhetorical hammer. Wielded both by her and her detractors. One really shouldn’t heed either uses.

Rosie O’Donnell was first a bad comedienne, then she was a bad actress, then a bad talk show host (albeit very popular), then a bad activist, and finally returning to a bad talk show host.
Parsing her words just seems… bad.
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://ceilidhcowboy.typepad.com/
MK, in case you missed it in the other thread, watch how I use a first person pronoun and then also - I repeat - and then also - the impersonal pronoun!
You know, I’ve learned more about grammar in the last couple of days than I learned throughout elementary school. Thanks, fellas.

Cheers.
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://ceilidhcowboy.typepad.com/
It is not only reasonable to assume that Rosie O’Donnell feels threatened by Christian Fundamentalists/Extremists (you choose. whatever), it’s highly probable that she feels threatened. Therefore, her comments may be ill chosen, they are, however, forgivable.

Remember, Ms. O’Donnell is a mother.

If the government ever carries the flag of the likes of Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Tony Perkins, and the like, it is not inconceivable to imagine agendas pushing for the removal of her children because she is gay. And if she is similar to any other mother, she would feel mortally threatened at the prospect of losing her brood.
We can imagine all sorts of scenarios in which any of us might feel threatened, Pogue, but in fact, what you claim threatens O’Donnell (or makes her feel threatened) doesn’t exist.

However, those that would harm her because of her sexual orientation or who she represents - should she do such a simple thing as show up in their country - do exist. And that’s the point.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://qando.net
Maybe, but she feels threatened by the prospect of that existence. As I said, this prospect is unlikely. Nevertheless, blowhards like Robertson, Falwell, Perkins constantly threaten her with that prospect. Which is why her comments, IMHO, are forgivable.
However, those that would harm her because of her sexual orientation or who she represents - should she do such a simple thing as show up in their country - do exist.
Well that’s easy for her to avoid, then, isn’t it? And unless Ms. O’Donnell is prone to stumbling onto the wrong aircraft, it is reasonable to assume that she feels a greater threat from Christian Fundamentalists/Extremists (you choose… whatever.)

One thing is for certain, Islamic Extremists will never control the US government.
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://ceilidhcowboy.typepad.com/
One thing is for certain, Islamic Extremists will never control the US government.
And I assume you have some valid argument (not conjecture, not fantasy) that the possibility exists for Christian extremists to control the US government? I’d say, in reality, it was more likely for Islamic extremists to do so (even though that possiblity is remote).
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://qando.net
And I assume you have some valid argument (not conjecture, not fantasy) that the possibility exists for Christian extremists to control the US government?
Like I said, McQ. That prospect is unlikely. But to the point, Ms. O’Donnell feels threatened by that prospect. That’s why I believe her comments to be forgivable.

But, hey… If you wanna throw down… lets go.

I’d say, in reality, it was more likely for Islamic extremists to do so (even though that possiblity is remote).
Hah!
First of all, there is no possibility that IE will ever take over the government. We won’t allow it. They do not have the capability… I mean… we kick ass and take names.
Christian extremists, on the other hand, do have the capability. Through ideas.
However,
The reason I believe that this is highly improbable, is evidence provided by the market.

As soon as – if elected – Christian Fundies starts banning Sports Illustrated Swimsuit edition, that’s the moment that the Fundy would be voted out of office.
Besides, the media would be against it from the get-go. And if you think the media is unkind to Fundies now, just imagine if they started dictating what the media can sell.

Hell hath no fury like a market scorned.

Btw, I’ll take your agreement as submission. ;)
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://ceilidhcowboy.typepad.com/
But to the point, Ms. O’Donnell feels threatened by that prospect.
And why should Ms.O’Donnell’s foolish paranoia be given any respect?
First of all, there is no possibility that IE will ever take over the government. We won’t allow it. They do not have the capability… I mean… we kick ass and take names.
Yeah, you kinda missed my point there, didn’t ya?

My fault ... I didn’t use the [/sarcasm] tag. There’s about as much a possibility of one as the other and any rational person knows that. Which, of course, leaves O’Donnell out of the equation.
Btw, I’ll take your agreement as submission. ;)
Agreement? Yo mead-breath, you do remember who you’re talking to right?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://qando.net
And why should Ms.O’Donnell’s foolish paranoia be given any respect?
Oh, I’m sorry. Did I say her comments should be given respect. My most humble apologies.

Oh wait… I didn’t say that…
Rosie O’Donnell was first a bad comedienne, then she was a bad actress, then a bad talk show host (albeit very popular), then a bad activist, and finally returning to a bad talk show host.
Parsing her words just seems… bad.
Right.
My fault ... I didn’t use the [/sarcasm] tag. There’s about as much a possibility of one as the other and any rational person knows that. Which, of course, leaves O’Donnell out of the equation.
Except as a rhetorical hammer.
Congratulations. You’ve just used an insignificant comedienne’s emotional response to prove a point.
Her foolish remarks are but a dunghill… and you are a cock that climbs upon it to crow. ;)
Agreement? Yo mead-breath, you do remember who you’re talking to right?
Vividly, my friend… vividly.
Your move, Gomer. ;)
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://ceilidhcowboy.typepad.com/
Oh, I’m sorry. Did I say her comments should be given respect. My most humble apologies.
Well you did say:
It is not only reasonable to assume that Rosie O’Donnell feels threatened by Christian Fundamentalists/Extremists (you choose. whatever), it’s highly probable that she feels threatened. Therefore, her comments may be ill chosen, they are, however, forgivable.
I’d assume at least you gave her comments enough respect to forgive them. I mean if not what’s to forgive?
Congratulations. You’ve just used an insignificant comedienne’s emotional response to prove a point.

Her foolish remarks are but a dunghill… and you are a cock that climbs upon it to crow. ;)
LOL! Me? I know you’re in serious rhetorical trouble now, Pogue. You don’t even recognize dung hills of your own making.

Oh ... back atchcya, Maurice.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://qando.net
"That’s why I believe her comments to be forgivable."

Forgivable, maybe, but still moronic. Children may feel threatened by boogeymen under the bed, but that does not make the boogeymen real.

**************************
"Christian extremists, on the other hand, do have the capability. Through ideas. "

No more so than Islamic extremists, or any other kind of extremist.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Hate begets hate.
 
Written By: Daniel
URL: http://
"If an anti-gay Christian murdered Rosie, I wonder what percentage of moderate Christians would defend his actions."

Probably the same amount who support the killing of doctors at abortion clinics. You say that Christian extremists aren’t dangerous or violent. Have you been to an abortion clinic lately?

Here’s a link for you:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_viol.htm

Go ahead and spin it. In fact why don’t you sit and spin on it.
 
Written By: KP
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider