|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Dev
Joined: 18 Apr 2006
|
 Posted: Sat Mar 13, 2010 7:48 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
[quote="Cerberus"]
he challenged the Bush administration on calling the 9/11 terrorists as "cowards". He correctly pointed out that deliberatly flying into a building at several hundred miles and hour may be many things, but it is NOT "cowardice".
quote]
Not only that, but what would the Bush adminstration have called brave, a bunch of comparatively lightly armed Al Queda thugs taking on the U.S. military directly? Get real. Of course it went for the sucker punch. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
flakfizer
Joined: 12 Nov 2004
Location: scaling the Cliffs of Insanity with a frayed rope.
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 13, 2010 8:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Dev"]
| Cerberus wrote: |
he challenged the Bush administration on calling the 9/11 terrorists as "cowards". He correctly pointed out that deliberatly flying into a building at several hundred miles and hour may be many things, but it is NOT "cowardice".
quote]
Not only that, but what would the Bush adminstration have called brave, a bunch of comparatively lightly armed Al Queda thugs taking on the U.S. military directly? Get real. Of course it went for the sucker punch. |
So true. How could anyone describe 9-11 as an act of cowardice when it combined two great acts of bravery: Committing suicide, and launching a surprise attack on unsuspecting, unarmed civilians? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cerberus
Joined: 29 Oct 2009
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 13, 2010 9:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| seonsengnimble wrote: |
| Cerberus wrote: |
Maher's no racist.
He's been around for a long time.
I love him to death, first and foremost because he's been supporting libertarian and decidedly ANTI PC views for a long long time.
Believe it or not, during the Presidency of Bill Clinton, Maher would criticize him and the Democrats a lot of the time, not for Willy's sexual peccadillos mind you, but for the usual political correctness so prevalent among so many sectors of that party.
Then right after 9/11, on his ABC show (this was a big career success, a network show) he had the GUTS to say something completely true:
he challenged the Bush administration on calling the 9/11 terrorists as "cowards". He correctly pointed out that deliberatly flying into a building at several hundred miles and hour may be many things, but it is NOT "cowardice".
Guess what? the pea brained Republicans went crazy - flooded the network with protests - you heard the usual nonsense of "why do you hate America" etc etc and the network cancelled his show.
He has managed to come back strong on HBO, and now is often, unsurprisingly a blistering critic of all things idiotically Republican, though not so much because they're Republican, but because 99% of today's Republicans are complete idiots (this comes from me, an ex Republican myself)
between all the Jesus freaks, the freedom fries why do you hate america crowd and the anti homosexual congressmen who then get caught with men, there's just too much delicious material not to dig deeply into it.
Can you really blame the guy?
He's one of my all time favorites. |
I agree with all of this. I'm pretty liberal. I'm a died in the wool atheist. I disagree with some of his peta views, but overall I agree with his environmental views.
I don't however agree with his demeanor towards black people. I don't care about pc, but he has a weird I'm liberal so I'm cool with you and I can say anything I want mentality that unsettles me. |
Maher has had black guests on his shows since day one. He also has many black friends. Perhaps he does have a certain comfort level that some may find strange, I don't know enough about it all to comment further, but no one, nowhere has EVER accused Maher of racism,l much less arrogance or condescension towards blacks.
Often, questions like "how does this look from a "black" perspective, are simply used to elicit discussion and arguments, and that's the entire point of his show. Though what exactly constitutes a 'black' perspectivce is very difficult to nail down (and is subject to bitter arguments in it of itself) - fact is that often a black guest may approach a topic from a different angle than a white one, if not feel entirely differently about it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cerberus
Joined: 29 Oct 2009
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 13, 2010 9:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="flakfizer"]
| Dev wrote: |
| Cerberus wrote: |
he challenged the Bush administration on calling the 9/11 terrorists as "cowards". He correctly pointed out that deliberatly flying into a building at several hundred miles and hour may be many things, but it is NOT "cowardice".
quote]
Not only that, but what would the Bush adminstration have called brave, a bunch of comparatively lightly armed Al Queda thugs taking on the U.S. military directly? Get real. Of course it went for the sucker punch. |
So true. How could anyone describe 9-11 as an act of cowardice when it combined two great acts of bravery: Committing suicide, and launching a surprise attack on unsuspecting, unarmed civilians? |
your logic is faulty. If something isn't cowardly, that doesn't mean it's necessarily brave. It's simply NOT cowardly. Maher didn't refer to the acts as "brave". He simply pointed out, CORRECTLY, once again, that cowardice is far from the best word to use that particular instance.
It was the typical preposterous claptrap that one got to hear from the Bush administration for the next 8 years.
HOWEVER. We have to be honest. The Clinton administration was guilty of the same thing.
Remember the terrorist attack on the destroyer, the USS Cole? that severaly damaged the vessel??
the government (Slick Willy's) also continually referred to this as an "act of cowardice".
REALLY???
Al Qaeda had already declared 'war' on America by that time in Bin Laden's speeches.
the USS Cole is a MILITARY vessel/object, a perfectly legitimate target in any "war", therefore.
the TRUTH is that the US govt and military doesn't like assymetrical warfare because it always takes away their biggest advantage, their massively superior gunpower. The terrorists weren't supposed to sneak up in their dinghies close enough to the destroyer.
There were supposed to start shooting their Kalashnikovs from a mile away in a mad dash towards the boat, whereupon the destroyer would've trained all of its guns on them and blown them all to dust and smithereens, and finished them off with a precision bomb air strike just to "clean things up".
Then the newspapers would befull of accounts of the "bravery" of the US Armed Forces in repulsing a terrorist attack. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cerberus
Joined: 29 Oct 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 14, 2010 6:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Then the newspapers would befull of accounts of the "bravery" of the US Armed Forces in repulsing a terrorist attack. |
one small correction. If there were a Filipino cook on the destroyer, then it'd be "coalition forces". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dev
Joined: 18 Apr 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 14, 2010 8:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="flakfizer"]
| Dev wrote: |
| Cerberus wrote: |
he challenged the Bush administration on calling the 9/11 terrorists as "cowards". He correctly pointed out that deliberatly flying into a building at several hundred miles and hour may be many things, but it is NOT "cowardice".
quote]
Not only that, but what would the Bush adminstration have called brave, a bunch of comparatively lightly armed Al Queda thugs taking on the U.S. military directly? Get real. Of course it went for the sucker punch. |
So true. How could anyone describe 9-11 as an act of cowardice when it combined two great acts of bravery: Committing suicide, and launching a surprise attack on unsuspecting, unarmed civilians? |
Okay. I'll repeat myself. Did you expect Al Queda to go toe to toe with the U.S. military? Al Queda is not mighty enough to face the U.S. military. In light of this fact, it would have been stupid of them to do so. This choice has nothing to do with bravery or cowardice. It's strategic - to cause the most damage to America and the least damage to them.
Because of this act
- thousands died in the WTC
- Americans have been living in a state of paranoia ever since (and the media fuels this)
- Bush passed The Patriot Act which gave the gov sweeping new powers to tap your phones and read your emails.
- You can't even take a pair of nail clippers with you on a plane now because you might kill someone or build a bomb with them.
- Bush found a way to launch his plot of invading Iraq. He lied to the people saying there was a link between Al Queda & Saddam Hussein. The WMD didn't exist either.
As for suicide bombers, one could argue that they're not so different from any other kind of soldier. Typical soldiers sign up knowing that they may not come home. They're ready to die for country. With suicide bombers, same thing except their fates are sealed. I guess you do this when your army is not mighty and you would rather know your costs ahead of time.
In short, I'm with Bill Maher in believing that the suicide bombers here were not cowards. They were evil for sure though. Maybe they'll get their 72 virgins in hell. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wuzza
Joined: 02 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 14, 2010 8:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
I hold very liberal views and I watch Maher's show pretty much every week. I love his New Rules, and I like watching smart people debate - it's so rare that you actually get to see it happen.
I think his familiarity with black guests can be a bit OTT. Maybe they know that he is absolutely not racist, so he gets away with it, in the same way gay guys can get away with saying sexy things to women without coming off as horny sleazebags. Just a theory.
As much as I like the show, a few things annoy me:
last year, he was always going on about milk, and it's potential dangers for humans. Any chance he got.
There aren't enough REpublican / right-wing guests. He needs to have 2 right-wingers to even out the sides. Too often the right-winger gets shouted down, and I'd prefer to see people win a FAIR fight.
Sometimes he advocates an agenda like it's the most important thing in the world, but it's generally something topical or he doesn't know enough about it, which makes me think he heard it at a party that week and looked it up on Wikipedia. I could be wrong, but he comes off that way sometimes.
All in all a good show, and I'd watch the equivalent right-wing show too if there was one. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Senior
Joined: 31 Jan 2010
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 14, 2010 8:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Check out Stossel on Fox Business. It's only a couple of months old but all the episodes are available on youtube. He's is more Libertarian than right wing, but the whole right/left dichotomy is bunk anyway. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sergio Stefanuto
Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 14, 2010 8:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| BaldTeacher wrote: |
I don't know what bothers me more, liberal pseudo-intellectuals or neoconservative republicans. |
A tough choice, certainly, but it's totally impossible to get a sensible word out of the former. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Street Magic
Joined: 23 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 14, 2010 8:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| flakfizer wrote: |
| So true. How could anyone describe 9-11 as an act of cowardice when it combined two great acts of bravery: Committing suicide, and launching a surprise attack on unsuspecting, unarmed civilians? |
I never understood the suicide as cowardice/the easy way out gimmick. There's probably no greater against the instinctual grain, fear producing activity than the intentional ending of one's own life. My theory is the gimmick came about as a way of rationalizing away the dilemma between not wanting to live and not having the courage to commit suicide-- sour grapes. There might even be some jealousy motivating the smearing of those brave enough to successfully conquer their own survival drives in rejecting the game nobody signed up for in the first place.
Bill Maher? He's alright from what little I've seen of him. I definitely like this clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHXXTCc-IVg |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cerberus
Joined: 29 Oct 2009
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sharkey
Joined: 12 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 14, 2010 5:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I like his rational and the fact he addresses the mishandling of animals. Thumbs up, for sure.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cerberus
Joined: 29 Oct 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 14, 2010 5:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
| BaldTeacher wrote: |
I don't know what bothers me more, liberal pseudo-intellectuals or neoconservative republicans. |
A tough choice, certainly, but it's totally impossible to get a sensible word out of the former. |
I may have to vote for the latter.
Freedom fries anyone?   |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shifter2009
Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Location: wisconsin
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 14, 2010 11:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| wuzza wrote: |
I hold very liberal views and I watch Maher's show pretty much every week. I love his New Rules, and I like watching smart people debate - it's so rare that you actually get to see it happen.
I think his familiarity with black guests can be a bit OTT. Maybe they know that he is absolutely not racist, so he gets away with it, in the same way gay guys can get away with saying sexy things to women without coming off as horny sleazebags. Just a theory.
As much as I like the show, a few things annoy me:
last year, he was always going on about milk, and it's potential dangers for humans. Any chance he got.
There aren't enough REpublican / right-wing guests. He needs to have 2 right-wingers to even out the sides. Too often the right-winger gets shouted down, and I'd prefer to see people win a FAIR fight.
Sometimes he advocates an agenda like it's the most important thing in the world, but it's generally something topical or he doesn't know enough about it, which makes me think he heard it at a party that week and looked it up on Wikipedia. I could be wrong, but he comes off that way sometimes.
All in all a good show, and I'd watch the equivalent right-wing show too if there was one. |
I am pretty with you on this. I actually think as a comedian he isn't very good but I like his show for the guests and the debate. I also agree with the poster about his snarky attitude. He really does think the only brains in the country exist on the coasts. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
flakfizer
Joined: 12 Nov 2004
Location: scaling the Cliffs of Insanity with a frayed rope.
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2010 1:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Street Magic wrote: |
I never understood the suicide as cowardice/the easy way out gimmick. There's probably no greater against the instinctual grain, fear producing activity than the intentional ending of one's own life. My theory is the gimmick came about as a way of rationalizing away the dilemma between not wanting to live and not having the courage to commit suicide-- There might even be some jealousy motivating the smearing of those brave enough to successfully conquer their own survival drives in rejecting the game nobody signed up for in the first place.
|
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
