I'm sure you are, Bob, being the decent fellow you are, I doubt though that you can direct me to a thread where you have attacked them as democrats for their actions, as you have with republicans.
You will have heard me assert that as a party in congress, they have been spineless from time to time, and that their actions have been spineless. You will have heard me say that some of the legislation that I dislike has come from them, at least in part, and you will have heard me say that they were foolish and certainly politically outmaneuvered.
On the other hand, I don't recall they they've acted in the same way that the Republicans have acted, used the same language or made the same sort of attacks on the other party as the Republicans have. For me to have attacked them in the same way that I have attacked the Republicans, I would have had to see them do the same sort of thing that the Republicans have been wont to do, and that, thank you, I do not recall them having done.
Had they acted in the same way I see the Republicans have acted, rest assured, I would have attacked them in exactly the same way. I know lots of perfectly fine Republicans. I know many admirable Republicans, my late father-in-law included, my brother-in-law included, uncles and cousins included. But I don't hear them talk the same sort of trash that I hear from Fox News or from the RNC or from the Republicans in either house of Congress.
...and yet you will state that all attacks blamed on Republicans are [real]? Should we present any thoughts on how some of the republican accused actions could be disposed of as being staged or untrue, you dismiss them immediately and Jennifer puts on her tin-foil hat.
I made no such statement. Don't put words in my mouth, please; I sound silly enough on my own without somebody adding things I didn't say and don't mean.
All reports blamed on Republicans are not real, and I never said they were.
Where did you see me say such a foolish thing? And why would you imagine that I would believe it?
The comment about Jennifer was a personal attack. Not only was it completely off the subject, it was gratuitous and sad insult about the character of somebody not even present. The rationality of such a comment completely escapes me.
He waited at least a day before issuing that correction, which suggests that he was in no hurry to correct anybody's misapprehension about his statement.
So that is the basis for your statement, that he waited longer than you would have liked for him to?
No, Mike, it's not. It's only the part you quoted to make fun of. The reasoning was this:
The Texas Representative who made the Baby Killer comment reported that he made that statement about the bill itself. He waited at least a day before issuing that correction, which suggests that he was in no hurry to correct anybody's misapprehension about his statement. He made the statement after it was public knowledge that the President had issued an executive order forbidding use of monies from that bill to be used for abortion, and he made the statement knowing that according to the Hyde amendment, it was already illegal for public monies to be used for that purpose. I am prepared to believe that the Representative was stupid enough not to be aware of one of these things, and maybe two, but not all three. Perhaps you might wish to argue that his stupidity was larger than what I might imagine from a Texas Congressman, but I believe that being a Congressman does really in truly take a good amount of smarts. So The Congressman knew that any reference he was making to "Baby-killer' in not going to be construed by anybody in the Body as being made in reference to that bill itself. They were no more stupid than the Congressman himself, and the gaveling that came from the front of the chamber and the murmurers that ran through the chamber were a pretty clear indication that everybody knew he was talking about Congressman Hoyer. Perhaps Mike choses to believe differently, but it is clearly his nobility of spirit giving the Texas Congressman the benefit of a doubt large enough to sink the national debt in without a trace.
What you did is called "quoting out of context." It is impolite.
With regards to Denise's post about the republican condemnation of violence, you looked for grammatical errors to bring up. With this, his actions were not quick enough. I see a recurring theme there.
Mike, near as I can tell, Denise posted about some group other than the Republican Party. Her posting quoted a statement that was concerned about hostile statements from the Republican Party, as well as the other two major parties. I didn't have to look for Grammatical errors to bring up; the existence of the grammatical errors made the statement so unclear to me that I didn't understand it because of its ambiguity. It was unclear whether that ambiguity was accidental or purposeful, as one sometimes finds in a statement crafted with legal help.
There is, sadly, no ambiguity about the fact that you have ignored my statement, and by taking only a single part of it to stand for the whole, you misrepresent me in front of others. I choose not to be curious about the "why" of this. I have not wish to know.
Your method for arriving at "a recurring theme" is not one I wish to know about either. Please keep it to yourself.
: Mike quotes me:
You've been insulting the President and everything Democratic nonstop for a year. You've been told that this is essentially incitement to riot. Now you want to pretend you haven't done a thing; it's all the Democrats again. And yes, you've been insulting Democrats right along with the best of them, Mike.
Then Mike Replies:
Yes, I have, Bob, and I freely acknowledge it. I think Obama is wrecking the country and I think Pelosi and Reid are two of the most horrendous creatures to have ever held high positions in the government (toss Frank in there, too, and don't forget Gore and Kerry while you are at it). You are calling it essentially incitement to riot???? Speaking one's mind is incitement to riot? What communist manifesto does that come from? Perhaps you would enjoy Cuba or Venezuela, where such actions are forbidden. Were your years of Bush-bashing incitements to riot then? Your double-standard is showing once again, Bob.
Okay, Mike, let me try to be clear here, because I think there's a real distinction that you may not understand; or, if you do understand it, you choose to overlook.
We live in a country with constitutionally protected free speech. That speech is not only a right, some would say — myself included — that it is an obligation, at least as far as politics goes. You have an obligation.
What you do not have an obligation to do is to say these things in an offensive or cruel or rude or abrasive fashion. Those of us who are inarticulate might be limited to doing so by lacks in our ability to think or speak or remember. Those of us who are articulate are blessed. This means that we are able to say what we think without actually needing to be cruel in the process.
Imagine somebody with the gall to criticize the fine quality of the customary Balladeer driving, the melodious singing tones that flow from the balladeer voice box as he cruises down the Floridian highways and byways, his deft turnings around the flow of traffic, his excellent eye, his fine control of speed. Tee-tum, tee-tum, te-tum and so on. Then some jerk sitting beside him pipes up with a rude comment like, "Yer going too fast!"
The thoughts that flow through the cortex of the famous Balladeer brain would boil down to, ""Mercy, I do so disagree with this fine fellow." And the polite Mr. Balladeer would do what?
For the sake of discussion and discussion only, mind you, let us imagine him saying something on the order of, "Blow it out your ears, Banana-brain!" Perhaps far fetched, perhaps not so far fetched, who but the mighty one himself would know? I certainly know that Mr. Bob might react in a fashion not all that far off. Mr. Bob might say, Oh Dear, Oh Dear, Blow it out your ears, Banana Brain!" A much more suitably Liberal comment, I'd think.
Now, to continue out thought experiment, imagine that the criticism has not come from the fruit-head on the bench beside balladeer, or trussed in the back-seat beside Mr. Bob, but from a police officer, peering quizzically through the driver's side window, holding out hand for various official documents. The thoughts going through the fevered brains of our two heroes, Balladeer and Mr. Bob may in fact be much the same as they were when so rudely interrupted by the previous ill-mannered lout — "Blow it out your ear, Fur-ball!" or something of the sort, with some additions or deletions of course — but the actual speech flying from the lips of of two examples of nature's noblemen would possibly run somewhat differently.
Both would probably include the words, "Yes, Officer," in them somewhere. Maybe not, but probably. Neither of the two gentlemen in question are total idiots.
The Officer or the lout in question aside, and the reality of their complaints aside, the thoughts inside the heads of the two poets are not all that different. The question is how they get across the truth with their freedom of speech, isn't it?
In the example, the difference between the two reactions for our two middle aged gentlemen (middle aged, ha!, there's a good one!) would be discretion, prudence, or, more baldly, fear.
Both of us would still probably tell the truth to the officer — "Well no, officer, I don't believe I was speeding. No officer, I'm not calling you a lier; last I heard a disagreement didn't mean that there was a lie, it meant only a disagreement. Of course I believe your instrument said what you say it said. Yes, I believe you believe it." Und so weiter.
We can exercise the same discretion other places as well. Freedom of speech doesn't mean that it's helpful to act nasty or contemptuous while exercising that obligation and right. The truth is just as true when it is phrased respectfully or even neutrally as it is when it is phrased with a cruel twist or in a put-down.
Would I exclude myself here? No, sir, I would not. And I think that the truth is often a bit more understandable when put in that form, so there are advantages in approaching it that way. Not to undercut the pleasure in the dangerous keenness of a well turned phrase, gleaming in the sun. Of course, of course.