I Believe It’s Called Pride

from JoeUser Forums

There are some people who will seldom if ever admit they were wrong. Ann Coulter surely would never apologize to the 9/11 widows; the detestable anti-war bloc that demonstrates against families burying their war heroes have no regrets. Gays will not admit they’ve gone too far in their Me-ism craze to tread on the majority’s sanctity of marriage, rather than to limit their cause to simply equal rights. Liberals refer to Conservatives as fascists while communist is the Conservative call-word for Liberals. George W. true to form of any president would never announce that Iraq was a big mistake. Few Democrats admit the wrong of their vote to go to war. A timetable is construed as "cut and run" while "stay the course" is seen as pure folly. 

Egos driven emotionally by unenlightened presuppositions rarely see the path to self destruction.

 

Copyright © 2006 Richard R. Kennedy All rights reserved. Revised: June 16, 2006.

http://stevendedalus.joeuser.com

politics
9,580 views 27 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
Sadly, I think there'd be more public regret if there were less taking advantage of humility. There's a jurist-like aptitude on the part of history, the press, politicians, anyone to jot down any admission of guilt and then beat people about the head and shoulders with it as often as possible.

If there were reconciliation, or at least humble acknowledgement from the other side, I think you'd see more of what you long to see. So long as the average reaction is: "SEE, I TOLD YOU!! NOW HERE IT AGAIN IN THE VILLAIN'S OWN WORDS!!!" you won't see it very often at all.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
Sad indeed as Socrates and Jesus can testify. I was, however, gratified that the press and Dems did not take Bush to task when he regretted "bring it on" and "dead or alive" coupled with his admission of not having at the time "sophistication."
Object Desktop - Get all of our enhancement utilities in one suite
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
the detestable anti-war bloc that demonstrates against families burying their war heroes have no regrets


the group to which you refer is definitely detestable. characterizing reverend fred phelps and his approximately 100-member westboro baptist church congregation (80 to 90 of whom are related to each other)as an 'anti-war bloc' or anything BUT a cult ruled by a homophobic racist is grossly inaccurate and an insult to those who oppose the war in iraq and/or all wars.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
I used "bloc" only to differentiate it [I didn't know it was a cult] from honorable anti-war proponents of which I include myself.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
The opposite to that also is false humility.  When one is so threatened by the fear of being prideful that they appologize for everything.  A well earned appology, after an admission of error, is something that carries a lot of weight (but as Baker indicated, hard to keep in its frame of reference due to the beating over the head).  But incessant appologies for every imagined offense is tiresome and only cheapens the act itself.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
nice an article that spreads around the stupidity. Both sides of the aisle suck far as I am concerned, they both have no intrest but themselves.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
"I used 'bloc' only to differentiate it [I didn't know it was a cult] from honorable anti-war proponents of which I include myself."

Phelps' cult (the only group I know of which demonstrates at soldiers' funerals) is not anti-war; they're anti-gay. They protest soldiers' funerals with their "GOD HATES FAGS" signs because they believe that America's tolerance for gays led to God "punishing" us with 9/11, and that the "War on Terror" is an attempt to fight back against "God's justice".

Speaking of gays and intolerance thereof, how exactly is it that giving gays the right to marry treads on the sanctity of my marriage? I keep hearing this, but I've never seen any explanation of how two married guys (or gals) living next door in any way damages the loving bond my wife and I have, or vows we made to each other.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
When we moved into our present home, the house next door was owned by a gay couple. It was sold a few years ago to a lesbian couple. Both couples have been great neighbors and my wife and I never felt our marriage or relationship was in any way threatened. The argument that people like Dobson put forth breaks down when you get beyond the ethereal concept and deal in reality.

So, I agree that formalizing gay/lesbian relationships as marriages in no way "threatens" heterosexual couples or traditional marriage. The same argument applies to polygamy, however, and to the age of consent issue, both of which are far more problematic in my view. Much tougher to reconcile laissez faire towards those questions and I admit to unease about them.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
To get back to your original topic, stevendedalus, I believe it's called oversimplification fueled by a voyeuristic media willing to shine the spotlight on the most shrill among us and eager for domestic conflict - stuff that sells.

Take the "stay the course" vs "cut & run" argument as an example.

Setting an unconditional timetable for withdrawal, even a soft timetable, would send several messages, depending on the recipients.

To the overwhelming majority of Iraqis who yearn for the success of the fledgling government, not to mention a peaceful future, it would say, "Oops, we broke your country. Sorry 'bout that, but we don't really have the time to help you fix it. Lotsa luck, though. We'll be thinkin' of ya." That message would, imho, do more to fan the flames of anti-American sentiment in the region than any other thing we could possibly do - the resentment would be overwhelming.

To international terrorist groups, it would say, "OK, guys. You can have your propaganda victory." If you think our being there is a good recruiting tool for them, just wait until they "win" & "drive the evil satan out of Iraq." They might then succeed in establishing a theocracy out of the political rubble, not to mention a safe haven from which to operate and further destabilize the region.

To, and on behalf of, the American public, it would say, "We no longer care what happens to the countries of the Middle East. We're weary of hearing day after day in our own media about how horrible we are as a nation." The media have been polling people to death since the war began with poll after poll showing "declining support" for the war. The polls themselves are oversimplified question sets, the responses to which are then overanalyzed and trumpeted by whoever they favor as if they were fact - I just have no faith they mean anything.

Opponents of our presence in Iraq shamelessly oversimplify "stay the course" as folly (to use your term) - as if that means we're just standing around spinning our wheels, our troops nothing more than the duck targets in a county-fair shooting gallery with the terrorists collecting giant teddy bears by the boatload.

Opponents of setting a timetable shamelessly oversimplify it as "cut & run" - I freely admit that - but the reason it resonates is that it succinctly conveys the essential truth of the matter. I could live with, and in fact favor, a conditional plan for troop reductions in Iraq. But that's what we already have de facto. That's why the calls for setting a timetable are an oversimplification and are a political play to a domestic audience.

I'm speaking now of the current reality - pre-war justification arguments are moot, just in case anyone wants to pointlessly rehash any of that.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: DaiwaPosted: Saturday, June 17, 2006


I'm speaking now of the current reality - pre-war justification arguments are moot, just in case anyone wants to pointlessly rehash any of that.


too often that's what it degenerates to, Where's the WMD"S, Bush lied, blah blah blah, we need to keep in mind the REALITY we are fighting for not just a way of life but for life itself.
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
Hey steven> should I even bother responding to your articles? I have been even handed and am still ignored.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
endless self promotion for the stations delivering this crap as news




One of our local stations has just started a new promotion where the anchors "promise" that when they say a story is "next" it really is "next" - that's how bad it's gotten. I'm with you on being sick of the pathetic cult of local news personalities. Our newspapers & billboard companies would go broke if it weren't for the "our newsreader is better than your newsreader" wars. And thank God we have our own local news reporter live, on-the-scene at the Boise turd-rollin' championships.

Case you can't tell, I hate local TV news, even though I'm well-acquainted with one our local anchors, who happens to be a very decent guy.
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
Speaking of gays and intolerance thereof, how exactly is it that giving gays the right to marry treads on the sanctity of my marriage? I keep hearing this, but I've never seen any explanation of how two married guys (or gals) living next door in any way damages the loving bond my wife and I have, or vows we made to each other.


Good point, but then you don't seem to get uptight over private lifestyles; unfortunately too many do.
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
"Oops, we broke your country. Sorry 'bout that, but we don't really have the time to help you fix it. Lotsa luck, though. We'll be thinkin' of ya."
True, but one could counterargue "Dammit, we got rid of your tyrant and his sons who were even worse and all the damned deck of cards!--what the hell more do you want form us?"
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
Hey steven> should I even bother responding to your articles? I have been even handed and am still ignored.
Not ignored, simply speechless over your moderation! 
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
True, but one could counterargue "Dammit, we got rid of your tyrant and his sons who were even worse and all the damned deck of cards!--what the hell more do you want form us?"


If the insurgency didn't exist and all they had to deal with was just putting shit back together & making it work, I'd say that was a fair point. But to walk away and just let the power vacuum enable another such leader and his sons, or something worse, might not be the best choice. For them or us.
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
Homosexuals INVITE the public into their bedrooms, and then get all huffy when that same public is repulsed by what they see.
That's been my sore spot too. I would have preferred they stayed in the closet, but at least show some real dignity in lieu of so many caricaturing their own lifestyle. 
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
"Good point, but then you don't seem to get uptight over private lifestyles; unfortunately too many do."

You've kind of avoided the question. You said "Gays will not admit they've gone too far in their Me-ism craze to tread on the majority's sanctity of marriage". Would you be so kind as to enunciate how you believe they're treading on the majority's sanctity of marriage?

Not trying to be confrontational here; I really would like to know. You seem like you're reasonable enough to have a genuine discussion about it rather than the usual response I get, which is to have talking points ("unenlightened presuppositions", if you prefer) parroted angrily at me.
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
Sure, as long as they do the same for polygamists, polyandrists, Master/slave unions, first generation relatives who wish to marry, and that crazy guy on Jerry Springer who wants to marry his horse
Whoa there!
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
You've kind of avoided the question.
Perhaps I was evasive; though gays obviously do not think they are treading on straight marriage, those who think of marriage of man and woman as sanctified by God perceive inverts as mocking their belief. When in Rome...don't flaunt the exceptionable[objectionable?] of course, straights should also show some control in what others feel.
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
Well, I hate to say it, but that's not much of an answer either. Just because some people "perceive" something, it does not necessarily follow that it is true. (Indeed, wasn't it you yourself who spoke of "egos driven emotionally by unenlightened presuppositions"?)

You were the one who initially made the statement that "gays will not admit they've gone too far in their Me-ism craze to tread on the majority's sanctity of marriage". So, what are *your* reasons for stating that it *actually* treads upon the sanctity of marriage (rather than merely upsetting people who think gay marriage shouldn't happen)?
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top

how exactly is it that giving gays the right to marry treads on the sanctity of my marriage? I keep hearing this, but I've never seen any explanation of how two married guys (or gals) living next door in any way damages the loving bond my wife and I have, or vows we made to each other.

It goes back to the "uptightness" that obviously is not your proclivity; still, there are far too many who find in-your-face gay marriage as offensive to religious beliefs--thus, uenlightened presuppositions from both sides.

Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
What you're saying in every one of your responses to my question is very different from your original statement. In your original post, you didn't say that some people FEEL that gays have gone too far, you said that gays won't admit that they HAVE gone too far; that they ARE treading on the majority's sanctity of marriage.

So without bringing subjective interpretations ("what some people feel") into it, in what objective, concrete way (or ways) does gays getting married ACTUALLY damage the sanctity of anyone else's marriage?
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
So without bringing subjective interpretations ("what some people feel") into it, in what objective, concrete way (or ways) does gays getting married ACTUALLY damage the sanctity of anyone else's marriage?
Touché. If you're a cement block, you're not offended or feel threatened. But when a can of worms is opened sensitized people do get upset and feel threatened that if not in their time, in their children;s time marriage would have lost its sanctity. Finally, and repeatedly WE are talking perceptions and not facts--people do make a hill of beans out of nothing. 
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
Once again, not a single word about how the sanctity of marriage is *actually* damaged by giving gays the right to marry.

Clearly, I was mistaken about the possibility of a genuine discussion on the topic; you won't or can't answer the question, even though you were the one who made the original statement.

Thanks anyway.