tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5194776.post114973614483976455..comments2023-11-05T23:25:31.498+11:00Comments on Wot Is It Good 4: identify excuse makers and hate mongersUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5194776.post-1149745226708478682006-06-08T15:40:00.000+10:002006-06-08T15:40:00.000+10:00damien - lolcalipendence - good point about rudolp...damien - lol<BR/><BR/>calipendence - good point about rudolph. and not to mention those who support the cabal. and those who hate 'islamofascists' and excuse behaviour against them would include dear TomTom himself.<BR/><BR/>Noise - it is a very slippery slope indeed. <BR/>friedman: "I was very focused on people who want to justify the murder of innocent women and children, innocent civilians, and I very much believed then and I very much believe now that they should be exposed."<BR/>would the 'collateral damage" argument be a justification of murder of innocents? or 'the haditha marines were stressed out cos their buddy died'?lukeryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13280906371216516750noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5194776.post-1149744395834092092006-06-08T15:26:00.000+10:002006-06-08T15:26:00.000+10:00Ur either with good grammar or ur with the terrist...Ur either with good grammar or ur with the terrists.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5194776.post-1149742452078040942006-06-08T14:54:00.000+10:002006-06-08T14:54:00.000+10:00Sorry, I should have edited my previous comment to...Sorry, I should have edited my previous comment to not switch tense the way I did. When I was referring to "you", I'm not referring to anyone here, but postulating a line of questioning that Amy should have asked Friedman, which I referred to in the third person at the beginning.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5194776.post-1149742326393209902006-06-08T14:52:00.000+10:002006-06-08T14:52:00.000+10:00Too bad that Amy didn't go down this line of thoug...Too bad that Amy didn't go down this line of thought...<BR/><BR/>"So using the rationale that Friedman proposes then we should make an enemy's list of all those that would make excuses for Eric Rudolph's actions and beliefs and therefore we should treat everyone that is active against abortion as terrorists... Correct? That would be consistent with the policy you advocate towards other forms of terrorism! They should be all 'exposed and 'identified', right?"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5194776.post-1149740851187032922006-06-08T14:27:00.000+10:002006-06-08T14:27:00.000+10:00Silliness huh? "If your not with us you're with th...Silliness huh? "If your not with us you're with the terrorists." Wonder if Friedman finds that silly?<BR/><BR/>I get his distinction. But that wasn't Goodman's question. Five years of propaganda suggesting that criticism of Bush=lack of patriotism or criticizing Bush=not supporting the troops.<BR/><BR/>That is the issue to which Goodman was referring...ie...Bush Co.'s efforts to Swiftboat anyone who disagrees with them. Understanding/justification doesn't enter the equation. Allegiance is the only thing they care about.<BR/><BR/>The proverbial slope is VERY slippery.Trackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18387081215729592952noreply@blogger.com