Ursa Majoris Posted April 16, 2007 Share Posted April 16, 2007 I pointed out that they use the same basic TACTICS, you moran. So go ahead and take your simplistic strawman argument and shove it. Yeah, you're right, of course. Jackson's oblique threats of boycotts are exactly the same as this, this and this. You've fallen into precisely the same trap as the fools who compare Bush to Hitler. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillyBalata Posted April 16, 2007 Share Posted April 16, 2007 Swerski has that effect on threads. Well, of course he does. He's way smarter then the rest of us. What other result can their be? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted April 16, 2007 Share Posted April 16, 2007 (edited) Well, alive, for one. And in Don Imus case, extremely wealthy. Unlike Imus, many of the people that have been fired, laid off, or not hired in the first place at the hands of Jesse and Al aren't so lucky. No argument that killing/maiming is a heck of a lot worse but, again, violence isn't needed to ruin one's life. Replace "Jesse and Al" and "racist" with any number of pressure groups on EITHER side of the aisle, and you've just called a big chunk of activists akin to terrorists. Your words, not mine. No, I didn't call them terrorists... Jesse and Al use threats, intimidation, fear, and coercion to achieve their goals. In the place of violence, they use the "racist" stigma as a weapon. Those tactics are not very far-removed from those that conventional terrorists use. Would I use the word "terrorist" to describe Al and Jesse? Not necessarily. I think that "race-baiter", "poverty pimp", and "bigot" are more appropriate terms. I said that they have similar tactics to conventional terrorists. Why is that so difficult for some people to understand? Oh, I remember now. Some people here are more interested in attacking a conservative than engaging in a rational discussion. Edited April 16, 2007 by Bill Swerski Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted April 16, 2007 Share Posted April 16, 2007 Yeah, you're right, of course. Jackson's oblique threats of boycotts are exactly the same as this, this and this. You've fallen into precisely the same trap as the fools who compare Bush to Hitler. Well, there is a SLIGHT parallel in that giving in to threats of any sort encourages the threatener to continue using the same approach. But aside from that, it ain't the same ballpark, ain't the same league, ain't even the same mofoin' SPORT. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted April 16, 2007 Share Posted April 16, 2007 Some people here are more interested in attacking a conservative than engaging in a rational discussion. More likely we're interested in calling someone to account for ridiculous statements. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted April 16, 2007 Share Posted April 16, 2007 But aside from that, it ain't the same ballpark, ain't the same league, ain't even the same mofoin' SPORT. And I completely agree with that. But that doesn't mean that the comparison shouldn't be discussed at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted April 16, 2007 Share Posted April 16, 2007 More likely we're interested in calling someone to account for ridiculous statements. You need to go back and re-read my statements. I never actually called Jesse and Al terrorists, Ursa's strawman arguments notwithstanding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted April 16, 2007 Share Posted April 16, 2007 And I completely agree with that. But that doesn't mean that the comparison shouldn't be discussed at all. So you admit it's BARELY a comparison - but you want to discuss it? I suppose next we shall compare apples and samurai swords. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted April 16, 2007 Share Posted April 16, 2007 So you admit it's BARELY a comparison - but you want to discuss it? I suppose next we shall compare apples and samurai swords. I saw a parallel in their tactics and brought it up. If you want to disagree with it, fine. It makes for a more intelligent discussion than 80% of the crap in the Tailgate anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted April 16, 2007 Share Posted April 16, 2007 You need to go back and re-read my statements. I never actually called Jesse and Al terrorists, Ursa's strawman arguments notwithstanding. No, you said their "tactics are not very far-removed", which is complete BS. Unless you want to include vengeful spouses, perpetrators of credit fraud, the black chick in the Duke case, subprime lenders, etc etc among "those using tactics similar to terrorists" to "ruin a life". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted April 17, 2007 Share Posted April 17, 2007 No, you said their "tactics are not very far-removed", which is complete BS. That's your opinion and you're free to express it. I disagree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted April 17, 2007 Share Posted April 17, 2007 That's your opinion and you're free to express it. I disagree. Well, show me an incidence of al-Qaeda or Hamas picketing a corporate headquarters and threatening advertiser boycotts because of inflammatory statements made about Muslims, and I'll be on your side of the argument. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted April 17, 2007 Share Posted April 17, 2007 Well, show me an incidence of al-Qaeda or Hamas picketing a corporate headquarters and threatening advertiser boycotts because of inflammatory statements made about Muslims, and I'll be on your side of the argument. Most members of conventional terrorist groups are too busy plotting/murdering to picket corporate headquarters. And there aren't that many multi-national corporations to picket in Saudi Arabia or Iran anyway. But we all saw plenty of flag-burning after the publication of the infamous Danish cartoons and, well, pretty much any perceived slight to Islam and/or support for Israel by the Western world. It happens all of the time. I'm sure that the vast majority of the pepole involved are not criminals, but I'm also sure that at least a couple of them are affiliated with organized Islamic terrorist groups. How about those Muslim clerics who are threatening to sue US Airlines after being detained for chanting loudly on a plane and not stopping after repeated requests by the pilot. Do you think that they were interested in prayer, rather than freaking out (i.e., terrorizing) the other members of the flight? I don't know the answer for sure, but I'm willing to bet that it was an episode of non-violent terrorism. So, yes, I believe that Islamic terrorists engage in non-violent forms of protest as well. It's only logical. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted April 17, 2007 Share Posted April 17, 2007 I am dumber for having read the last two pages of this thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted April 17, 2007 Share Posted April 17, 2007 I am dumber for having read the last two pages of this thread. Just be thankful that Swerski doesn't think the sky is red. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted April 17, 2007 Share Posted April 17, 2007 i think the whitlock terrorist/sharpton comparison is one of those rhetorical devices that is meant to be evocative and thought provoking, but not necessarily one that stands up to sustained rational critique. on that level, i think it succeeds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted April 17, 2007 Share Posted April 17, 2007 i think the whitlock terrorist/sharpton comparison is one of those rhetorical devices that is meant to be evocative and thought provoking, but not necessarily one that stands up to sustained rational critique. on that level, i think it succeeds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted April 17, 2007 Share Posted April 17, 2007 i think the whitlock terrorist/sharpton comparison is one of those rhetorical devices that is meant to be evocative and thought provoking, but not necessarily one that stands up to sustained rational critique. on that level, i think it succeeds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted April 17, 2007 Share Posted April 17, 2007 nah, i really think it does work on a certain level...bringing out how these guys use fear of attack to bring about political acquiescence. they are somewhat unique in that respect, as far as political hacks and their MO's go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted April 17, 2007 Share Posted April 17, 2007 nah, i really think it does work on a certain level...bringing out how these guys use fear of attack to bring about political acquiescence. they are somewhat unique in that respect, as far as political hacks and their MO's go. No question they have the power to make people acquiesce most of the time. They use simple fear of monetary loss. While I have no time for people like Imus, who has made his millions by doing nothing useful, I do wish companies, especially advertisers, would sack up and defy the idiocy of Jackson et al. Comparisons of this strategy to that of Al-Qaeda are, however, not useful or valid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted April 17, 2007 Share Posted April 17, 2007 well, ursa and bushwanked....what would you think of someone who compared yesterday's violent shooting spree that killed 31 people, with the "verbal violence" of don imus? hypothetically speaking, of course Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted April 17, 2007 Share Posted April 17, 2007 (edited) well, ursa and bushwanked....what would you think of someone who compared yesterday's violent shooting spree that killed 31 people, with the "verbal violence" of don imus? hypothetically speaking, of course Just scanned the article (including quotes), obviously haven't listened to the audio yet, but initial reaction is ETA: Even if he's trying to make a wider point, it's as valid as Bush vs Hitler or Islamic terrorists vs Jesse Jackson, which is to say it's not valid at all. He will have to pay for this mistake, especially given the proximity to the murders. Edited April 17, 2007 by Ursa Majoris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godtomsatan Posted April 17, 2007 Share Posted April 17, 2007 Just scanned the article (including quotes), obviously haven't listened to the audio yet, but initial reaction is ETA: Even if he's trying to make a wider point, it's as valid as Bush vs Hitler or Islamic terrorists vs Jesse Jackson, which is to say it's not valid at all. He will have to pay for this mistake, especially given the proximity to the murders. Is the "broader point" any less tangential than saying if mommy or daddy were at home more this wouldn't have happened? Or blaming this on video games, anti-depressants, or (after reading these plays) Guns n' Roses? I haven't listened to the comments, but the quotes aren't anything to get upset about unless you're looking for something to be upset about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted April 17, 2007 Share Posted April 17, 2007 Just scanned the article (including quotes), obviously haven't listened to the audio yet, [wonder] Did Az listen to the audio yet either [/wonder] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted April 17, 2007 Share Posted April 17, 2007 Is the "broader point" any less tangential than saying if mommy or daddy were at home more this wouldn't have happened? Or blaming this on video games, anti-depressants, or (after reading these plays) Guns n' Roses? I haven't listened to the comments, but the quotes aren't anything to get upset about unless you're looking for something to be upset about. Let's face it, politically it would look stupid to lump Don Imus in with these murders, whether or not there is a philosophical point to be made about violence in general, especially as close as we are to the latter event. You know the Republicans will make hay if they can. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.