Pure Evil

Congressman Pete Stark said:

You don't have money to fund the war or children. But you're going to spend it to blow up innocent people if we can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the President's amusement.


I heard this yesterday and couldn't believe it. Well, ok. I could. I mean we have traitors in Congress, so why not just plain evil people too? You have to be evil in order to even think that a president would send troops into a war purely to amuse himself by watching them die.

Now supposedly it's against House rules to engage in personal attacks while in session, but because this guy is a democrat they not only let him say it, but they're letting it stand in the congressional record. If a republican had said something like this about Clinton sending troops into Kosovo it would have been spread far and wide, condemned in every circle. But then you already know what I think of the liberal media :)
.........................
"It is pointless to resist, my son." -- Darth Vader
"Resistance is futile." -- The Borg
"Mother's coming for me in the dragon ships. I don't like these itchy clothes, but I have to wear them or it frightens the fish." -- Thurindil

Well. I guess that's that then.

       
« Good News is No News
Cops Hide Here »

Posted on Oct 19, 2007 6:25 am by Samson in: | 9 comment(s) [Closed]
Comments
Regardless of my own views of this current war and our current president and our current government in general, I agree with you that the above is just wrong on every level. :(

       
I can't even figure out what point he's trying to make from just that extract. I don't know if "evil" is the right word, but "pretty stupid and offensive" I'd happily agree with. What he said was wrong and out of place...

You might or might not be interested to see that, contrary to your suspicion that this wouldn't get any coverage in the "liberal media", it got at least some coverage in the NYT. The post provides some extra context; now I understand where he was going with this, even if I think he should not have put it that way.

Samson said:

Now supposedly it's against House rules to engage in personal attacks while in session, but because this guy is a democrat they not only let him say it, but they're letting it stand in the congressional record

Do you have evidence of a case where something a Republican said was struck from the record because it was offensive? And/or evidence that what Republicans say gets struck more often than what Democrats say?

       
Do you have evidence of a case where something a Republican said was struck from the record because it was offensive? And/or evidence that what Republicans say gets struck more often than what Democrats say?


You need to go back and read what I said. Because this isn't what I said. You're doing it again. Now I'm not sure if you're doing it on purpose or what, but read what I said, not what you think I said.

Evil is exactly the right word because you have to be some kind of monster to accuse the president of a heinous crime like that in the middle of an active war.

As far as the media coverage, I'm still waiting to see it spread far and wide with condemnations aplenty from all over. But so far there's been next to nothing out of the liberal media, aside from that and some bloggers on the net, and Nancy Pelosi's softball rebuke of the statement.

You can't honestly be trying to tell me that if Newt Gingrich had said that Clinton sent our troops to Kosovo to get their heads blown off for his own amusement that the media wouldn't have made it front page news for all to see for weeks.

       
Samson said:

but because this guy is a democrat they not only let him say it, but they're letting it stand in the congressional record.

This is what you said, Samson. You are saying:
(a) the guy is a democrat
therefore
(b) they let him say it
and
(c) they're letting it stand in the record

If this didn't imply that:
- had he been a Republican, his statement would not have been allowed and/or would have been struck from the record
then I don't know what you could possibly have meant. You wouldn't have said (a) otherwise. Unless of course you just weren't being very precise in your words, which is possible too. Sometimes I say things that don't mean what I wanted them to mean, too...

In any case, yes, please do correct me...

Samson said:

As far as the media coverage, I'm still waiting to see it spread far and wide with condemnations aplenty from all over. But so far there's been next to nothing out of the liberal media,

See, this is where you're confused. The news is supposed to report, not comment (and therefore not condemn). It is not the news's role to comment. That's why we have commentators and editorial boards. The news tells you what happened, other people tell you if it's good or bad.

Samson said:

You can't honestly be trying to tell me that if Newt Gingrich had said that Clinton sent our troops to Kosovo to get their heads blown off for his own amusement that the media wouldn't have made it front page news for all to see for weeks.

People said he bombed countries, killing many innocents etc., to divert attention from his "adventures" with Lewinsky, but that didn't make front-page news for weeks either.

       
No, this is what I said:
If a republican had said something like this about Clinton sending troops into Kosovo it would have been spread far and wide, condemned in every circle.

If Newt had said something along those lines about Clinton it would have generated a firestorm.

A prime, but far lesser example, during the impeachment when Clinton was on trial for perjury, the democrats were trying to convince everyone that it was all just about sex. The republicans responded with the facts - Clinton lied under oath, and was being prosecuted for it. But the media happily picked up on the "it was only about sex" part and proceeded to tear into republicans that they were attacking Clinton for having sex in the Oval Office. When that wasn't what they were after him for. This was a relatively minor thing in comparison and look at the shitstorm they made of it - and continue to make of it over 10 years later.

See, this is where you're confused. The news is supposed to report, not comment (and therefore not condemn). It is not the news's role to comment. That's why we have commentators and editorial boards. The news tells you what happened, other people tell you if it's good or bad.

No, I'm not the one confused. I too think that the NEWS should stick to reporting the facts and leaving the opinions and comments to the commentators. Now, often they will stick to just the facts. When it suits them. When republicans do bad things. When democrats do bad things it either doesn't get mentioned at all or they lowball it and only mention it once on the mid-day news reports and never again. Even when sticking to the facts their bias shines through since they're biased by omission in these cases.

People said he bombed countries, killing many innocents etc., to divert attention from his "adventures" with Lewinsky, but that didn't make front-page news for weeks either.

You've made my point. Many people believed this was exactly the case and were left wondering why it wasn't getting the coverage they were expecting. This was one of those instances where people were getting their first real taste of liberal media bias since it only really got legs with the talk radio crowd who at the time weren't as large or as powerful. It only made front page news in the "mainstream" press after increasing pressure from folks who wanted to know WTF was going on and why they weren't being told.

       
Sigh. This is pointless. One of these days I will exhibit learning behavior and not get into these with you anymore. :-)

       
Suit yourself, it looked to me like we were fairly close in our opinions on this one. Maybe if you'd stop changing the argument by making it look like I said something I didn't we wouldn't arrive at this point so often :)

       
Part of the reason why I said it was pointless is that I still don't see how I distorted what you said. :-) Your comment about Republicans and Clinton etc. wasn't what I was referring to. I cited what I was referring to, which is the bit I wasn't clear on. I wasn't talking about Clinton at all, just the part where you talked about Stark's remarks not being cut from the record because he's a Democrat.

You know, about the whole Clinton & bombing thing. Maybe it didn't get much news coverage (but by your definition it seems pretty "evil" to accuse him of killing innocents just to take our minds off his escapades) but it got turned into a movie instead... :)

       
I wasn't talking about Clinton at all, just the part where you talked about Stark's remarks not being cut from the record because he's a Democrat.


Ah. Well. Then no, I don't have any hard evidence to support it one way or the other. It's more of a gut feeling based on prior behavior from democrats with regard to their treatment of republicans and their relative lack of punishment when one of their own does something heinous like this. Nancy Pelosi softballing her rebuke of Stark falls far short of the mark and she only did it at all because of pressure from the right.

I assume with Clinton you're referring to the movie "Wag the Dog"? That's become somewhat of a catch-phrase since that movie was released and the democrats have been using it against Bush with their false accusations that he lied about the war. Yes, I would classify the assertion that he bombed Iraq just to distract us all from "Monica-gate" to be as evil as what Stark said about Bush. But it was a bad thing being said about a democrat so the liberal press tried to sit on it.

       
<< prev 1 next >>
Comments Closed
Comments for this entry have been closed.
Anonymous
Register

Forgot Password?

SuMoTuWeThFrSa
 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31