Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

Section 8 · Oct 21, 2003, 07:22 pm

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/552...C1381E0626B.htm

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/B8A...0D354FC23B4.htm

Summary:
General Boykin issues derragoratory statements regarding Muslims, declaring this war is a Christian war agaisnt Satan. He proceeded to say that Muslims worship idols, and that the war will only be one if we come against them in the name of Jesus. Bush refused to condemn the comments made by general Boykin, or issue any type of disciplanary sentence.

Impenitent · Oct 21, 2003, 08:39 pm

isn't freedom of speech a bitch?

Section 8 · Oct 21, 2003, 09:01 pm

Impenitent, I didn't say that he shouldn't be able to say those comments, I just believe that they're offensive. Everyone has a right to say what they want, but I think that it was inappropriate.

The Devil · Oct 21, 2003, 09:26 pm

I love how you're allowed to hate Muslims, but if you hate Jews you're the worst scum on Earth. God Bless America.

RebelWithanAK · Oct 21, 2003, 09:53 pm

If you hate Jews, you're the worst scum of the earth. If you hate Muslims, you're the worst scum of the earth. If you hate Likud's Israel, however...

Impenitent · Oct 22, 2003, 02:35 am

8

"I didn't say that he shouldn't be able to say those comments"
"Bush refused to condemn the comments made by general Boykin, or issue any type of disciplanary sentence"

why would you think that Bush should have had to condemn the statements or issue some disciplinary sentence if you thought the general should have been able to say those comments?

RebelWithanAK · Oct 22, 2003, 08:54 pm

You are aware of what a representative form of government entails, yes?

Impenitent · Oct 22, 2003, 09:54 pm

you are aware of what freedom of speech entails, yes?

Section 8 · Oct 22, 2003, 10:00 pm

Did I say that Bush should condemn them? No. Are you putting words in my mouth? Yes.

Gary · Oct 22, 2003, 10:14 pm

No, I think Bush should condemn the comments. Freedom of speech is one thing, however, he didn't make these comments in the capacity of a normal citizen. Not only is he a Lt. General, but he is also a high ranking official in the Intelligence department of the DoD. That makes him a presidential appointment. That makes him a symbol of the administration, and furthermore when speaking on anything militarial he is speaking as a Lt. General.

Had these comments been made in private to some friends, I'd really have no problem with it. If he was sitting around the bar talking about how Muslims should all burn in a pit of fire, then yeah, I would still support his right to say that, although I would severely disagree.

However, back to the point, he is a governmental offical. He was speaking about the War on Terrorism, drawing from his experiences in that leadership position.

He deserves to be reprimanded not so much for his comments, but for his ignorance of the weight of his words.

Also, in my view, once someone assumes the role of public leadership, appointees included, they are subject--for better or worse--to the monster of public opinion and accountability. This isn't a battle of being politically correct, this is a governmental offical using his expertise to pander to fear.

Waychel · Oct 22, 2003, 10:43 pm

Stennis and Thermond were both on the senate and highly respected individuals, but they were strongly for segregation among blacks and whites, as well as the repealing of equal rights and liberties awarded to blacks. The presidents during both their times also refused to comment, let alone condemn, the extremely derogatory statements they issued among their lobbying and filibusters.

If the president were to address General Boykin, he would have to address every single racial, religious, sexist and equally prejudice deflamatory remark given by every single individual person in the senate, congress, administration, military, and the list goes on...

He'd be out of office by the time he finished addressing half of them.

But explain to me please when the president's job changed from running the country to babysitting the personal remarks of other influential people and issuing public statements critiquing them?

Gary · Oct 22, 2003, 10:54 pm

Well, seeing as he is the leader of all those influential people making those public statements, he should be reprimanding them when they make statements that are derrogatory.

What they say in public, in their position of leadership, reflects on our government. Are you comfortable with a government like that?

I don't care if it takes him all day either, racism won't be stomped out in a day.

Gary · Oct 22, 2003, 10:57 pm

I knew I read this today.... http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/23/politics...NYTHEADLINES_HP

Waychel · Oct 22, 2003, 11:06 pm

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Gary,)
Well, seeing as he is the leader of all those influential people making those public statements, he should be reprimanding them when they make statements that are derrogatory.

What they say in public, in their position of leadership, reflects on our government. Are you comfortable with a government like that?

I don't care if it takes him all day either, racism won't be stomped out in a day.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Racism and prejudice DO exist within our government because they exist in this country. No matter how equal we are, there will always be people believing in crusades or hating upon one group or another. I agree that our administration should watch what comes out of its mouth considering it could diminish what image we have in the international community. But having sexual relations with interns when you're both a married man and president of the United States is just as equally bad, if not worse, and look at to what degree people defended and got over those actions?

I'm just desentasized to it I guess because you hear things like if not worse than this coming out of Washington every day. I don't see how people can expect a presidential statement in regard to all of it.

But Bush did issue a statement apparently, so I guess its a moot point.

Section 8 · Oct 22, 2003, 11:27 pm

General Boykin was just expressing his opinion. However, I believe he should be removed from his position because his predjudice might be affecting his work.

Impenitent · Oct 22, 2003, 11:45 pm

8

"Did I say that Bush should condemn them? " that is exactly what your outrage at bush's inaction implies

"Bush refused to condemn the comments made by general Boykin, or issue any type of disciplanary sentence" bush refused to condemn, you obviously wish bush had condemned him

"General Boykin was just expressing his opinion. However, I believe he should be removed from his position because his predjudice might be affecting his work." there you go... you reveal yourself, I didn't have to put words in your mouth... you already did...

Impenitent · Oct 22, 2003, 11:56 pm

Gary

"Had these comments been made in private to some friends, I'd really have no problem with it. If he was sitting around the bar talking about how Muslims should all burn in a pit of fire, then yeah, I would still support his right to say that, although I would severely disagree."

all the general's comments were made in churches...

aren't churches private enough for you?

A member of the house of representatives, Todd Tihart from Kansas had this to say: "I am disappointed at the level of intolerance being shown to the general for speaking about his faith in a church"

Gary · Oct 23, 2003, 12:36 am

Waychel,

I think you misunderstood me, I agree with you. I'm simply saying that it's more deplorable when it's spoken, taken as a position. Being desensitized isn't an excuse.

Gary · Oct 23, 2003, 12:37 am

Impentient

Not quite. From the initial New York Times article:

"Lt. Gen. William Boykin of the Army, deputy under secretary of defense for intelligence and war-fighting support, has used speeches at churches and prayer breakfasts to portray the American battle with Muslim radicals as a fight against "Satan," saying militant Islamists sought to destroy America "because we're a Christian nation.""

He was speaking at the church and prayer breakfasts, about the War on Terror, calling it a war against Satan, IN HIS UNIFORM.

That's my problem with it, as much as I hate what he said, had it been in private, not using his position to justify it in speechs to the public about the war, I'd have no problem. It would make my blood boil, but he has the right to say whatever he wants when he's not wearing the uniform and speaking in public about US policy.

Waychel,

Yes, I know. I'm simply saying

RebelWithanAK · Oct 23, 2003, 12:40 am

He's a people's representative. Given that we're a secular nation, what the fuck are we doing having a 'holy warrior' deciding our policy in a Muslim country?

Oct 21, 2003, 08:39 pm	#2 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	isn't freedom of speech a bitch? "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Oct 21, 2003, 09:53 pm	#5 (permalink) (top)
RebelWithanAK Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739	If you hate Jews, you're the worst scum of the earth. If you hate Muslims, you're the worst scum of the earth. If you hate Likud's Israel, however... . . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Oct 22, 2003, 02:35 am	#6 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	8 "I didn't say that he shouldn't be able to say those comments" "Bush refused to condemn the comments made by general Boykin, or issue any type of disciplanary sentence" why would you think that Bush should have had to condemn the statements or issue some disciplinary sentence if you thought the general should have been able to say those comments? "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Oct 22, 2003, 08:54 pm	#7 (permalink) (top)
RebelWithanAK Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739	You are aware of what a representative form of government entails, yes? . . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Oct 22, 2003, 09:54 pm	#8 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	you are aware of what freedom of speech entails, yes? "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Oct 21, 2003, 07:22 pm	#1 (permalink) (top)
Section 8 Hot Lava Location: Spokane, WA Posts: 782	http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/552...C1381E0626B.htm http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/B8A...0D354FC23B4.htm Summary: General Boykin issues derragoratory statements regarding Muslims, declaring this war is a Christian war agaisnt Satan. He proceeded to say that Muslims worship idols, and that the war will only be one if we come against them in the name of Jesus. Bush refused to condemn the comments made by general Boykin, or issue any type of disciplanary sentence.

Oct 21, 2003, 09:01 pm	#3 (permalink) (top)
Section 8 Hot Lava Location: Spokane, WA Posts: 782	Impenitent, I didn't say that he shouldn't be able to say those comments, I just believe that they're offensive. Everyone has a right to say what they want, but I think that it was inappropriate.

Oct 21, 2003, 09:26 pm	#4 (permalink) (top)
The Devil Molten Ash Location: Canada Posts: 55	I love how you're allowed to hate Muslims, but if you hate Jews you're the worst scum on Earth. God Bless America.

Oct 22, 2003, 10:00 pm	#9 (permalink) (top)
Section 8 Hot Lava Location: Spokane, WA Posts: 782	Did I say that Bush should condemn them? No. Are you putting words in my mouth? Yes.

Oct 22, 2003, 10:14 pm	#10 (permalink) (top)
Gary aspiring dictator Location: Washington DC Posts: 14	No, I think Bush should condemn the comments. Freedom of speech is one thing, however, he didn't make these comments in the capacity of a normal citizen. Not only is he a Lt. General, but he is also a high ranking official in the Intelligence department of the DoD. That makes him a presidential appointment. That makes him a symbol of the administration, and furthermore when speaking on anything militarial he is speaking as a Lt. General. Had these comments been made in private to some friends, I'd really have no problem with it. If he was sitting around the bar talking about how Muslims should all burn in a pit of fire, then yeah, I would still support his right to say that, although I would severely disagree. However, back to the point, he is a governmental offical. He was speaking about the War on Terrorism, drawing from his experiences in that leadership position. He deserves to be reprimanded not so much for his comments, but for his ignorance of the weight of his words. Also, in my view, once someone assumes the role of public leadership, appointees included, they are subject--for better or worse--to the monster of public opinion and accountability. This isn't a battle of being politically correct, this is a governmental offical using his expertise to pander to fear. visit the red arm chair

Oct 22, 2003, 10:43 pm	#11 (permalink) (top)
Waychel Supercalifragilistic Posts: 431	Stennis and Thermond were both on the senate and highly respected individuals, but they were strongly for segregation among blacks and whites, as well as the repealing of equal rights and liberties awarded to blacks. The presidents during both their times also refused to comment, let alone condemn, the extremely derogatory statements they issued among their lobbying and filibusters. If the president were to address General Boykin, he would have to address every single racial, religious, sexist and equally prejudice deflamatory remark given by every single individual person in the senate, congress, administration, military, and the list goes on... He'd be out of office by the time he finished addressing half of them. But explain to me please when the president's job changed from running the country to babysitting the personal remarks of other influential people and issuing public statements critiquing them? Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee.

Oct 22, 2003, 10:54 pm	#12 (permalink) (top)
Gary aspiring dictator Location: Washington DC Posts: 14	Well, seeing as he is the leader of all those influential people making those public statements, he should be reprimanding them when they make statements that are derrogatory. What they say in public, in their position of leadership, reflects on our government. Are you comfortable with a government like that? I don't care if it takes him all day either, racism won't be stomped out in a day. visit the red arm chair

Oct 22, 2003, 10:57 pm	#13 (permalink) (top)
Gary aspiring dictator Location: Washington DC Posts: 14	I knew I read this today.... http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/23/politics...NYTHEADLINES_HP visit the red arm chair

Oct 22, 2003, 11:06 pm	#14 (permalink) (top)
Waychel Supercalifragilistic Posts: 431	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Gary,) Well, seeing as he is the leader of all those influential people making those public statements, he should be reprimanding them when they make statements that are derrogatory. What they say in public, in their position of leadership, reflects on our government. Are you comfortable with a government like that? I don't care if it takes him all day either, racism won't be stomped out in a day.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Racism and prejudice DO exist within our government because they exist in this country. No matter how equal we are, there will always be people believing in crusades or hating upon one group or another. I agree that our administration should watch what comes out of its mouth considering it could diminish what image we have in the international community. But having sexual relations with interns when you're both a married man and president of the United States is just as equally bad, if not worse, and look at to what degree people defended and got over those actions? I'm just desentasized to it I guess because you hear things like if not worse than this coming out of Washington every day. I don't see how people can expect a presidential statement in regard to all of it. But Bush did issue a statement apparently, so I guess its a moot point. Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee.

Oct 22, 2003, 11:27 pm	#15 (permalink) (top)
Section 8 Hot Lava Location: Spokane, WA Posts: 782	General Boykin was just expressing his opinion. However, I believe he should be removed from his position because his predjudice might be affecting his work.

Oct 22, 2003, 11:45 pm	#16 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	8 "Did I say that Bush should condemn them? " that is exactly what your outrage at bush's inaction implies "Bush refused to condemn the comments made by general Boykin, or issue any type of disciplanary sentence" bush refused to condemn, you obviously wish bush had condemned him "General Boykin was just expressing his opinion. However, I believe he should be removed from his position because his predjudice might be affecting his work." there you go... you reveal yourself, I didn't have to put words in your mouth... you already did... "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Oct 22, 2003, 11:56 pm	#17 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	Gary "Had these comments been made in private to some friends, I'd really have no problem with it. If he was sitting around the bar talking about how Muslims should all burn in a pit of fire, then yeah, I would still support his right to say that, although I would severely disagree." all the general's comments were made in churches... aren't churches private enough for you? A member of the house of representatives, Todd Tihart from Kansas had this to say: "I am disappointed at the level of intolerance being shown to the general for speaking about his faith in a church" "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Oct 23, 2003, 12:36 am	#18 (permalink) (top)
Gary aspiring dictator Location: Washington DC Posts: 14	Waychel, I think you misunderstood me, I agree with you. I'm simply saying that it's more deplorable when it's spoken, taken as a position. Being desensitized isn't an excuse. visit the red arm chair

Oct 23, 2003, 12:37 am	#19 (permalink) (top)
Gary aspiring dictator Location: Washington DC Posts: 14	Impentient Not quite. From the initial New York Times article: "Lt. Gen. William Boykin of the Army, deputy under secretary of defense for intelligence and war-fighting support, has used speeches at churches and prayer breakfasts to portray the American battle with Muslim radicals as a fight against "Satan," saying militant Islamists sought to destroy America "because we're a Christian nation."" He was speaking at the church and prayer breakfasts, about the War on Terror, calling it a war against Satan, IN HIS UNIFORM. That's my problem with it, as much as I hate what he said, had it been in private, not using his position to justify it in speechs to the public about the war, I'd have no problem. It would make my blood boil, but he has the right to say whatever he wants when he's not wearing the uniform and speaking in public about US policy. Waychel, Yes, I know. I'm simply saying visit the red arm chair

Oct 23, 2003, 12:40 am	#20 (permalink) (top)
RebelWithanAK Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739	He's a people's representative. Given that we're a secular nation, what the fuck are we doing having a 'holy warrior' deciding our policy in a Muslim country? . . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.