July 27, 2004

Morals?

Read Moxie's take on this fashion "statement."

Comments:

Please Note! Failure to abide by the following may result in your comments being edited or deleted: Remain on topic. Foul language and/or personal attacks are not permitted. Excessive links (more than three per thread) must be approved first. If you do include a link in your comment, make sure it is a short link (go to tinyurl.com if it is too long). Try to keep comments to 125 words or less. Thank you.

My God.

Posted by: Jakester at July 27, 2004 11:32 AM

This world is getting braver and Braver

Posted by: Katie at July 27, 2004 03:07 PM

Morality? After the "morality" of Operation Iraqi Freedom, why not Operation Sudanese Freedom?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/3922461.stm

Posted by: The Token Librul at July 27, 2004 03:43 PM

TL, what the hell does that have to do with an abortion t-shirt? Starving kids in Africa is a terrible problem, don't get me wrong. But the posting is a t-shirt that says "I had an abortion". The thought of someone boring a hole in my son's head and sucking his brains out with a vacuum while his heart is still beating disgusts me. And now they want everyone to be proud of it. If it doesn't disgust you then God help you.

Posted by: Jakester at July 27, 2004 04:23 PM

because unocal can't run a pipeline through the sudan. anyway, what does this have to do with abortion? i for one am pro-choice, but would most certainly punch any person wearing this shirt in the stomach.

Posted by: jakec at July 27, 2004 06:16 PM

The headline was "Morals?" I added a thread on that subject. Deal with it instead of attacking me.

Good to know that jakec loves the First Amendment so much that he'd assault someone wearing a shirt he didn't like. What's next, burning a car with a Kerry/Edwards bumper sticker, all in the name of freedom?

Posted by: The Token Librul at July 27, 2004 08:02 PM

"A belief in hell tends to mean less corruption and less corruption tends to mean a higher per capita income," they wrote.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/fed/2004-07-27-fed-hell_x.htm?csp=26&RM_Exclude=Juno
How corrupt would the Bush administration and all its rich supporters be if they didn't (at least claim to) believe in hell? They might, you know, steal money from their employees and investors, maybe even steal a whole country for its oil.

Posted by: The Token Librul at July 27, 2004 08:07 PM

"Deal with it instead of attacking me."

TTL. We might respect your opinion more if you did not attack Bush and the right all the time. You keep up with the "don't attack me" chant, yet you honestly cannot see that you are doing the exact same thing.
Can you give an opinion without somehow attacking Bush? It is called an obsession. It is an illness you have.

I now sit back and await your reply of "you're an evil cancervative/racist" or "Don't attack me".

Posted by: gunner at July 27, 2004 08:09 PM

You seem to be obsessed with attacking me instead of dealing with anything I bring up for discussion. Why is that? Is it because it's easier than confronting your president's--and party's--crimes, failures and shortcomings?

Just once, instead of attacking me for having the audacity to express a patriotic opinion, how about you explain why it's "moral" for us to be in Iraq, but not Sudan? Are the Sudanese not as entitled to "freedom" as the Iraqis?

Posted by: The Token Librul at July 27, 2004 11:15 PM

www.darfurgenocide.org.
Over 160,000 people already have died; another 500,000 of our fellow humans are at grave risk of dying in the coming months unless this genocide is stopped. (How many "of his own people" did Saddam slaughter in the month prior to our invading Iraq?)

Posted by: The Token Librul at July 27, 2004 11:21 PM

Let's put it another way:

"Here at the Spawn of Satan convention in Boston..."
http://www.anncoulter.com/
I'll stop when she stops.

Posted by: The Token Librul at July 27, 2004 11:37 PM

LEGAL, BUT NOT MORAL VS. MORAL, BUT NOT LEGAL:

Morals? Afraid of hell?
http://www.glcq.com/fraud.htm
Bush got paid for "training" he didn't do, and then went AWOL. Here'S proof from his records.

Federal prosecutors charged four executives of U.S.
Foodservice with fraud.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/28/business/28grocery.html?th
Apparently, no CEOs are afraid of hell.

What biasedlibrulmedia? Where? Point to one?
http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/04/07/con04315.html
This country was lied into war. The vice-president is a war profiteer who is being investigated for taking bribes and doing illegal business with sanctioned countries. I guess he's not afraid of hell, either.

Stealing elections is moral?
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/27/opinion/27krug.html?hp=&pagewanted=print&position
Jeb Bush must be no more afraid of hell than his two brothers.

The price of war is measured in the lives of lost Americans
like Sgt. Donald Walters.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/28/opinion/28kris.html?th
Lying for war is moral? No republicans appear afraid of hell.

Morals? Afraid of hell?
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=6228
“Wages have been rising.”– Vice President Cheney, 7/12/04

VERSUS

"The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that hourly earnings...fell 1.1 percent in June.. The June drop, the steepest decline since the depths of recession in mid-1991, came after a 0.8 percent fall in real hourly earnings in May....Thee decline in the hourly rate last month cut deeply into workers' pay."– NYT, 6/18/04

AND

The Bush administration continues to claim malpractice caps will lower insurance rates, even though most empirical data contradicts that claim

Posted by: The Token Librul at July 28, 2004 05:03 AM

Bob Novak on Gore's "rants," "mean" Hillary and "flesh-eating" DNC delegates
http://mediamatters.org/items/200407260008
I'll stop when he stops.

Jerry Falwell, who sold videotapes "proving" Clinton murdered Vince Foster, and said gays and lesbians, ACLU members and pro-choicers caused September 11, set to give opening night invocation at RNC convention in NYC.
http://americablog.blogspot.com/archives/2004_07_25_americablog_archive.html#109094409422245330
He sure ain't afraid of hell. I'll stop when he stops.

Posted by: The Token Librul at July 28, 2004 05:04 AM

where did i say i like the first amendment? all i said is that my reaction would be to punch them in the stomach - it's more of a clash in fashion ideals. also, why would i burn a car with a kerry/edwards bumper sticker - the train of thought makes no sense. enter your typical wordy response below, please ...

Posted by: jakec at July 28, 2004 07:05 AM

"Over 160,000 people already have died; another 500,000 of our fellow humans are at grave risk of dying in the coming months unless this genocide is stopped. (How many "of his own people" did Saddam slaughter in the month prior to our invading Iraq?)"

this statement implies that 160,000 sudanese have died in the last month, which is not true - this is since the beginning of the conflict. and the vast majority of them have died from famine, not from being slaughtered (and this is how many of them will continue to die). while there is certainly fighting going on - it is a humanitarian crisis - they need food, water and medicine - and yes, the sudanese arabs need to be halted and their government needs to stand-up to them, but the war was started by black african sudanese militia groups and it's not until the arab militias counter-strike that the war is labeled genocide. it's just another sad civil war on a continent that no-one seems to care about.

dude - if you gonna provide facts - get them straight or learn how to articulate them better. it makes you come off as ignorant and careless and makes your intentions very suspect. we wouldn't want that, would we?

anyway - what does this have to do with saddam? does this mean you would have approved of a war in Iraq if he had killed more people in the month leading up to the war than the number of sudanese who have died in july? that thought process makes no sense. there are estimates that saddam killed roughly 1 million of his people - new mass graves are unearthed consistently (sadly) in Iraq since his fall. he also had no compunction about using chemical weapons on his own people - i guess that isn't a serious enough crime for you. besides, is this inane war has proven one thing, it's that we don't know what he was doing - EVER! he was undeniably a wild card - maybe he killed dissidents with zeal in the month or months leading up to the war - we just don't know.

there was no shortage of humanitarian reasons to go to war in Iraq, was there? it might be a major failing of the Bush admin. to not put a greater emphasis on these events, but since they were framing this war as part of the war on terrorism, i hardly expected them to. come november, they wil pay the price for this.

anyway, what do you propose we do in Sudan? or is this what you do, logon to the internet and run people down without offering any concrete resolutions of your own. i would love to hear your views on what to do next - maybe i will include them in a letter to my senator.

hasn't this administration intervened to stop similar conflicts in Liberia and haiti?

Posted by: jakec at July 28, 2004 07:26 AM

"Here at the Spawn of Satan convention in Boston..."
http://www.anncoulter.com/
I'll stop when she stops."

careful - you might be held to this statement. her column has been pulled from USA today. somehow, i think that if she were to retire tomorrow, we would still see you hear spewing your hate, masked as "patriotism", as you call it.

Posted by: jakec at July 28, 2004 07:32 AM

Okay, "dude," I'm gonna provide some facts and get them straight:

First, you wrote, "...but would most certainly punch any person wearing this shirt in the stomach." (See above.)

Then you changed it to, "...all i said is that my reaction would be to punch them in the stomach..." (See above.)

Now who "come(s) off as ignorant and careless and makes your intentions very suspect"?

And speaking of which, how does USA Today's cancelling of Coultergeist's column hold me to what she wrote?

Posted by: The Token Librul at July 28, 2004 08:25 AM

i thought the "spawn of satan" article was funny

Posted by: Ripper at July 28, 2004 08:35 AM

you are very hostile - and seemingly very negatively effected by the use of the word dude.

Regarding the following:

First, you wrote, "...but would most certainly punch any person wearing this shirt in the stomach." (See above.)

Then you changed it to, "...all i said is that my reaction would be to punch them in the stomach..." (See above.)

it wasn't my intent to change anything - to me it still reads the same, even if the words have changed. i guess you're not of my intellectual station or something, unless you explain to me how the meaning of the two sentences is in any way different. of course the verbage changed slightly - i was re-explaining it to you. anyway, how would this make me ignorant and careless and make my intentions very suspect ( i do love the fact that you must co-opt what i say and repose it to me) - it's just a joke - not unlike you calling conservatives cancervatives or ann coulter coultergeist or her calling the DNC the "spawn of satan". funny how you look to uphold you freedom of speech, but only look to belittle the speech of others.

oh and regarding AC - here is what you wrote:

"Here at the Spawn of Satan convention in Boston..."
http://www.anncoulter.com/
I'll stop when she stops.

then i wrote: careful - you might be held to this statement. her column has been pulled from USA today.

i am not holding you to what she wrote - i am holding you to what you said, about stopping when she does. it seems the public is growing weary of her venomous personality and the outlets for her to spew her hate are declining. maybe when she is out of the public we will expect you to tone down your rhetoric and enjoy a civil debate.

anyway - i wasn't joking in my earlier post - i would like to hear your ideas for the situation in darfur or iraq for that matter - i am open to reason.

Posted by: jakec at July 28, 2004 10:55 AM

All of this from a t-shirt about the legal murder of innocent babies.

What's happening to us. Are we growing apart?

Posted by: Jakester at July 28, 2004 12:57 PM

i am not so worried about what the shirt says as much as that it is likely made from cotton, thus destroying the natural habitat of the cotton boll weevil. that's what really got me upset ...

Posted by: jakec at July 28, 2004 02:07 PM

So jakec doesn't like the First Amendment, would "most certainly" beat up people wearing clothes he doesn't like, but is open to reason. Okay, then, back to "reason."

QUESTION: Should we expend our energies opposing behaviors that are legal or behaviors that are illegal?

I believe we should obey laws. Otherwise we have anarchy. When we encounter laws we don't like, we may try to get them changed. But until then, we must obey them, or we're no better than street gangbangers.

I therefore also believe we should spend our energies opposing people who do illegal things rather than demonizing people who do legal things.

Imagine, for example, if all the moral outrage wasted on Teresa Heinz Kerry's offhand comment to a newspaperman the other day had been directed towards corporate pirates or polluters. In other words, imagine what would be different if people cared about things that mattered instead of allowing themselves to be distracted by things that don't matter.

Which is more important, that Senator John Kerry looked goofy in a space suit, or that 900+ American soldiers have died in a bogus war?

Which is more important, that Kerry "re-enacted" war-time exploits that he actually did, or that President Bush is still AWOL from the Texas Air National Guard?

Which is more important, that people legally wear t-shirts reflecting legal behavior, or that more CEOs get arrested for stealing millions of dollars each week?

There, jakec, is that simple enough for you? For everybody else? Or do I need to post opinions on whether or not Senator Kerry had Botox injections, and whether or not he needs some more?

Posted by: The Token Librul at July 28, 2004 03:13 PM

i never said i don't like the first amendment - i said, "i never said i like the first amendment" after you claimed i loved it so much i would (etc.) ... my point is - you, undeniably, keep putting words in my mouth. first you claim i love the first amendment so much ... after i said nothing of the sort. now you say i don't like the first amendment - which i also never said. you have yet to ask me what i actually think of the first amendment - you just keep writing libelous things about me - which, by the way, is not covered by the first amendment.

you are so busy being "outraged" and on the attack that you can't even see when people are on the same side of the political spectrum as you are (if you actually read my posts this would become painfully obvious to you)?

it was a joke, man, lighten up a little. you of all people should understand sarcasm.

Posted by: jakec at July 28, 2004 04:14 PM

Hey Lib, why don't you try to stay on topic instead of trying to derail this tread?

Oh, that's right, you're nothing but an op-ed cut-and-paste retard without a single original thought in your head.

Posted by: Raging Dave at August 4, 2004 09:03 PM

Hey, can, if you could read, you'd know the thread started with "Morals."

Posted by: The Token Librul at August 4, 2004 11:05 PM

And speaking of morals...

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=4717&item=2259654516&rd=1
Bush Property Seized! Trading with the Enemy! Judicial Watch is pawing in disbelief through President Bush's business connections with the Saudi-based Bin Laden family.

Posted by: The Token Librul at August 5, 2004 01:18 AM

You just linked to an EBAY ITEM????

BWAAAAAAAAA HAAAAAAAAA HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

(gasp, pant, gasp)

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAA HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

You really don't have any facts on your side, do you? You have absolutely nothing!

Posted by: Raging Dave at August 5, 2004 09:12 PM